I love a lot of local multiplayer games, but I'm rarely in the same room as the friends I want to play them with. Steam's new Remote Play Together feature, which is available in the beta client, looks to solve that enduring problem by jury-rigging online multiplayer into games which don't support it. And it works, somewhat amazingly.

Only the host needs to own the game, and after they launch it, they can invite friends through the Steam friends list (just right click a friend's name and select 'Remote Play Together'). Once a remote player joins, the game is streamed to them in a fullscreen window. The difference between Remote Play Together and a regular broadcast is, of course, that it also gives viewers mouse and keyboard control, or recognizes their controller as one connected to the host's PC. 

It's remote access to a PC, which is nothing new, but limited to the game window. I tried to see if input could leak into the desktop environment by sharing a windowed game, but the best I could do is get a remote player to move my cursor out of the window. You can't troll your friends by pressing Alt-F4 remotely to close the game or anything like that—it'll just close your own window.

You also can't fancy yourself a small-time Google Stadia competitor by inviting friends to play singleplayer games on your PC. I tried using the feature with Slay the Spire and Disco Elysium, but the Remote Play option wasn't available. Right now, 4,254 games are supported, and you can find the list of them here.

Above: Rayman Origins on my screen, with Wes hosting.

The test results

Our testing confirmed the obvious: the quality of your experience will vary with the quality of the host's internet connection.

We started with so-so conditions. I hosted TowerFall Ascension for Wes on a notoriously inconsistent Comcast connection with 8-to-10 Mbps upload speed. I ran it on an ultrawide, 2560×1080 monitor, which meant the black bars at the sides of my screen were being streamed to his 1440p, 16:9 display. Wes said it looked like garbage.

We then switched places, with Wes hosting on his 100 Mbps fiber connection, running the game at 1440p. It looked great on my end, and I was surprised to find that I didn't feel like I was at a disadvantage as we fired arrows at one another. Of course there had to be some latency, but I couldn't sense it.

In both TowerFall Ascension and Spelunky, my Xbox One controller was detected instantly. When Wes tried to host a game of Rayman Origins, however, I had to use the keyboard. I might've been able to get it to detect my controller by fiddling with Steam Big Picture settings, but I sense that some games are just going to be stubborn.

In those first two games, though, everything worked perfectly. All I had to do was accept Wes' invite, and a few seconds later I was looking at the game, able to interact with the menu as player two. In TowerFall especially, once we were past character selection, it genuinely felt like I was playing a built-in online multiplayer mode.

Above: TowerFall Ascension on my screen, with Wes hosting.

Later, I tested Enter the Gungeon and TowerFall Ascension with a friend who lives in the Midwest. I'm in California. We had trouble getting it to work initially, but both games were playable despite our distance. (Note that the host's stream passes through a Steam server before making its way to the other players, so the location of that server adds a variable.)

With him hosting Enter the Gungeon, I noticed a bit of input lag, but was able to adapt. The real problem was how artifacted it looked at times. In a fast, busy game like that, you need to see the enemies crisply and I couldn't. Now and then it would hitch for a good second. It was technically playable, but I'd never want to play that game at that quality.

This time when I hosted TowerFall, however, he said it looked fine on his end, and though he noticed some input delay, we went toe-to-toe for a match. Network conditions are fickle. The only advice I can give is to have the person with the fastest internet connection host the game you're trying to play, and to ask the stars for advice as to when their upload speed will be at its peak.

Above: Enter the Gungeon with non-ideal network conditions.

Image quality and latency won't be a big deal for all games. Part of the reason I picked TowerFall for testing is that it requires precise timing, but turn-based games will obviously be ideal for the feature. It's too bad hot seat local multiplayer has gone out of fashion over the past couple decades.

Acknowledging that Remote Play won't always work perfectly, as nothing reliant on network conditions can, I'm excited by the opportunity to crack open games I haven't played in ages with people who I've moved away from in the process of relocating a couple of times.

It's also heartening to see Steam iterating on these experimental features. The past couple years of Valve history haven't been the most exciting. It's announced some VR games, but we haven't seen them. The world bounced off Artifact so hard there's a new crater somewhere in Washington. Until the recent library redesign, the news about Steam has typically involved equivocating statements about what it will and won't sell (the line seems to be drawn at 'whatever people get really mad about').

But this new feature is playful and generous. Depending on how well it works in the long run, it could improve sales of local multiplayer games by broadening their audience. For those who already have a collection of local multiplayer games, it's a way to get more out of the games they own. Everybody wins, as far as I can tell.

Steam is already the best game launcher, but the past few months have reinforced the idea that Valve isn't resting on its success. I haven't tried streaming services like Parsec to see how they stack up to Remote Play Together, but it's certainly the most convenient way to solve the problem of never being in the same room as the people you play games with.

Great moments in PC gaming are bite-sized celebrations of some of our favorite gaming memories. 

I'm glad Sea of Thieves finally came along to conclusively win the battle that has raged on in gaming for years. Which game has the best water? That's over now. That's done. Sea of Thieves wins by containing what I assume is some sort of magic that permits a real ocean to exist inside it.

But alongside the water war, there was the fire war, and that was won years ago by Far Cry 2. And then won again by Far Cry 3. And Far Cry 4. And so on. The Far Cry games do fire gud, and the first time I experienced it in Far Cry 2 it was like witnessing a real fire: It was alarming and fascinating and almost immediately out of control.

Far Cry 2's fictional African country was the perfect setting for a great fire propagation system. It was sun-bleached and arid, dry and dusty, with fields of dead grass and trees of brittle branches. Its combat was chaos, with psychotic mercenaries who'd ram your car off the road and fill the air with lead at the drop of a hat. The entire game was a powderkeg just waiting for a match.

I quickly learned how useful fire could be. If enemies were dug in behind cover, a molotov hurled toward them didn't even have to be accurately thrown. It'd smash, setting the grass on fire, which would quickly spread across the ground, forcing the mercs out into the open where they could be picked off without me having to leave cover. Thanks, fire! We're a great team!

But the fire wasn't done and we weren't a team after all. The flames would keep spreading, climbing tree trunks, igniting vehicles, setting off ammo boxes, forcing me out of cover, and cutting off my escape route. More than once the blaze I'd started had become another enemy and I'd have to flee while patting down my burning clothing and cursing because my car had exploded (unlike the other Far Cry games, cars weren't all that easy to find).

Most of the fires I started were accidents that quickly spiraled out of control. A bullet finds an ammo box or a grenade goes off too close to a vehicle. A careful approach and minutes spent scouting are all for nought. The entire fight changes course because most things are burning and everything else is about to catch fire. 

Once I was taking out a convoy from a safe distance with a rocket launcher, and I suddenly noticed I was taking damage. I looked down and saw the field I was standing in was engulfed in flames. Eventually I figured out what had happened: the Carl G rocket launcher emits a flame from the back when it fires a rocket, and that flame had set the grass behind me on fire, which quickly spread under my feet. My car was already burning and once again I had to escape on foot.

Sure, I was angry and wounded but also impressed. The flame from a rocket launcher setting the grass on fire might have messed up my mission, but I still had to admit it was pretty cool.

I love permadeath in games. (Also in reality, too, I guess, but one thing at a time.) Permadeath imbues every decision with consequence. It makes every HP loss a terrifying proposition. It can turn some games into dramatic, terrifying, exhilarating adventures. It can lead to soul-crushing defeat, or fist-pumping jubilation. It’s why XCOM, Spelunky, and Invisible, Inc. are three of my favorite games of all time.

There are many other games that don't use capital-P Permadeath as a core aspect of their design but still manage to create immensely satisfying experiences when played with self-imposed permadeath rules (and maybe a few other restrictions). 

Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor

Self-imposed restrictions: Minimal upgrades. You can only purchase Execution, Impact, Strike from Above, Poison, Brutalize, Detonate, and Wraith Stun.

Shadow of Mordor is a fantastic game by any stretch, but at a certain point—say, about five or six hours in—you become an unstoppable juggernaut. The orc captains who once terrorized you no longer pose much of a problem. You check out their strengths and weaknesses more out of blind curiosity than strategic necessity.

As fun as the game is after you’ve reached this point, I missed that sense of disempowerment and forethought that defined the opening hours.

To that end, I highly recommend you try a permadeath, minimal-upgrades run: Don’t invest in any upgrades beyond the borderline-necessary ones (executing people from stealth, shooting barrels to make them explode) If you die, you have to delete your save file.

Suddenly, it really, really matters if an orc is immune to ranged attacks, because now you have to put yourself in harm’s way to kill him. Suddenly, the question of whether you should brand or kill an orc becomes drastically more difficult: The deadlier an orc is, the more you’ll want to recruit him, but recruiting him will be drastically more dangerous than killing him.

And you know those moments where you’re about to stealth kill an orc captain, only to be ambushed by a vengeful orc you thought you’d killed? Those bits are a hundred times more terrifying in a permadeath scenario.

Prey

Difficulty: NightmareGame options: Activate all “survival mode” options: weapon degradation, traumas, and oxygen scarcity.Self-imposed restrictions: Don’t buy the slo-mo skill, because it makes things way too easy.

Prey really doesn’t get the credit it deserves. It’s probably the best Spooky Space Station game ever made after System Shock 2, and it’s so nonlinear that it makes permadeath runs an absolute joy.

Succeeding in a Prey permadeath run (on Nightmare difficulty—Normal is too easy, and Hard seems like it can’t be that hard because it’s not Nightmare, but it is that hard, so you’ll get complacent and die in stupid ways) is less about memorizing specific strategies for specific levels and much more about mastering Talos 1 as a whole. 

Because the game’s mission objectives are sprinkled throughout the station, and because resources are so devilishly important to your survival, a Prey permadeath run requires you to make constant risk-versus-reward decisions about how you’re going to empower yourself. Do I head to Halden Graves’ office so I can unlock unlimited Neuromod fabrication and jab myself full of skill points? That could be a great plan, but his office is protected by a Nightmare—maybe I should go to Psychotronics first and get the Psychoscope so I can research some more typhon and get a bunch of cool psi powers.

But, shit, if I do that then all the turrets I’ve been relying on in the lobby are going to start shooting at me, because they’ll identify me as an alien.Okay, so maybe I’ll… okay. I’ll invest in weapon upgrades and just bumrush the Nightmare with a shotgun. But—goddammit. When I started this run, I turned on the optional survival mechanics, and now my shotgun only has four more shots before it breaks in my hands. So maybe I need to spend my neuromods on crafting and repair?

And so on, and so on, until you either become a goddess of Talos 1 or end up dying at the hands of your own damn turrets that you just told yourself you’d remember to deactivate once you started buying typhon skills.

This has happened to me three. Separate. Times. I love it.

Hotline Miami

Self-imposed restrictions: Permadeath, except for the instafail stealth hospital levels.

You’ll never successfully complete a Hotline Miami permadeath run. At least, I haven’t. It’s way too random, way too quick, and way too lethal.

But hoo boy, is it fun to pretend you’ve got a shot. 

For two or three months, I would attempt to beat Hotline Miami permadeath at least once a day. I knew I’d probably never succeed, but the thrill of beating each new level—the way your heart skips a beat when an enemy’s shotgun blast somehow barely misses you—is just too damn good. Plus, it's so short that failure never feels too punishing; I think my longest run was something like fifteen minutes, compared to the dozens of hours I’ve lost to Prey permadeath mishaps. 

Metal Gear Solid 5

Game options: Deactivate “reflex mode.”Self-imposed restrictions: Never play as Big Boss; upon dying, release your soldier forever.

As a die-hard Metal Gear Solid fan, I was really excited for MGS5 to delve into how Big Boss turned into a sociopathic monster who treated soldiers more like disposable assets than human beings. Unfortunately, MGS5 has very little interest in telling that story. But with a little creativity on our end, we can do what Kojima didn’t.It’s not clearly signposted to the player, but you don’t have to play MGS5 as Big Boss. You can, in fact, play as any soldier you kidnap from the field. Other than their VO and a potential special ability or two, these grunt-level soldiers play exactly the same as Big Boss.

But when they die, you should immediately remove them from Diamond Dogs. They did some good work for you, but they’re dead now. Bring in the next meatbag, give them a rocket launcher, and tell them to take on a bipedal tank single-handedly. Maybe they’ll do better than the last idiot.

NOW you’re thinking like Big Boss.

Dark Souls

Self-imposed restrictions: Permadeath. Period.

Okay, here’s the thing: a Dark Souls permadeath run is hard, but it’s not quite as hard as you think. Maybe you’re imagining that a failed run means you’ll have lost dozens of hours. But that’s not the case!

One of the many beautiful things about Dark Souls’ design is how its rhythms, strategies, and geography just sorta seep into your brain through the act of repetition. Your first run of Dark Souls might take forty hours; your second, half that; your third, half that again. At this point, the no-glitch speedrun record for Dark Souls is about 90 minutes. Ninety minutes! 

Any Dark Souls veteran can tell you that while there are a few parts of the game that remain pretty damn difficult (the snipers on the Anor Londo rooftops, Ornstein and Smough, the stupid-ass Bed of Chaos), almost every challenge in the game can be reliably dealt with if you just possess the knowledge and the perseverance.

So, yeah, you might die and lose two hours of progress. But you’ll be surprised by how quickly you can make that time up in your next run. 

I love permadeathing Dark Souls because it enhances the gameplay themes that are already there: Don’t give up; you’re better than you think you are; knowledge, failure, and mastery are all intertwined; the Bed of Chaos is some bullshit.

Far Cry 2

Difficulty: InfamousSelf-imposed restrictions: Go into the game knowing the twist ending. For extra fun, don’t buy any sniper rifles—only use the crappy ones dropped by enemies.

In order to properly enjoy a Far Cry 2 permadeath run, you need to know how the game ends. So, spoiler warning:

For the first 99% of Far Cry 2, you rely on a small cadre of NPC “buddies.” These folks will fight alongside you, they’ll offer you alternate ways to complete missions, and most importantly, they’ll revive you when you die. They’re awesome.

At the end of the game, however, your best buddy—whichever one is left alive that you’ve spent the most time with—will team up with all the other remaining buddies and ambush you.These buddies have at least twice as much health as any random bad guy, and they’re armed with pretty good weapons, and they used to be your friends. It’s a brilliant and utterly cynical climax.

And now that you know that, you’re ready to permadeath Far Cry 2 on its hardest difficulty setting.

Your buddies are the single best resource you have to keep you alive in the brutal wilds of Unnamed African Country. But if you leave too many of them alive, that’s just more firepower that’s going to inevitably be turned on you at the end of the game. It's a foreboding puzzle that you'll spend the entire length of the game working out a solution to.

So, what do you do? Do you systematically murder your buddies through the course of the game, praying you don’t get into too much trouble before you can find a new one? Or do you let your buddies live, knowing the chance you’ll be taking at the end of the game? And is it, like, morally okay to summon your buddy and shoot them in the face before they’ve even done anything wrong?

You get to answer these questions for yourself just by playing a permadeath run.

This had the makings of a great game. A fascinating period of history, the American Revolution, to tap into. A half-English, half-Mohawk lead character swept up in a bloody war between proud natives and imperial invaders. Exploring Boston, New York City, and the wild frontier. Hanging out with George Washington and riding with Paul Revere. But when the game was released in the winter of 2012, it sadly failed to live up to the promise of the setting.

Despite having an interesting past and a compelling stake in the world, hero Connor is a charisma vacuum. Stoic, sullen, and hard to love, he's the polar opposite of the previous games' beloved Ezio Auditore. He's dry, self-serious, and humourless: all traits that can be applied to the game itself. The only real spark of wit and charisma is his father, Haytham Kenway, who you play as in the game's extended prologue. If only he was the star.

Then there's the heavily scripted mission design. Most AC games are guilty of relying on insta-fails, but they're so rife here that half the time you barely feel like you're playing it at all. If you dare to try and solve a problem creatively, or take a route through the world the developers don't want you to, it's often a game over. This leaves you feeling stifled, like you're jumping through hoops for the level designers rather than really engaging with anything.

The setting, although beautiful at times, is actually a bad fit for an Assassin's Creed game. Boston and New York, being relatively new cities at the time the game is set, don't have many tall buildings to climb and navigate with. It's mostly short wooden houses, with none of the vast, dramatic architecture of other games in the series. Even the historical figures you meet are pretty dull—especially compared to the fun cameos from the Ezio games.

The stealth, even though it's a major part of the game, is terribly clunky and limited. The sidequests are mostly tedious, particularly the ones involving chasing pieces of fluttering paper around. The homestead, a ranch that can be upgraded, is a neat idea, but ultimately undercooked. And the story feels curiously unfinished, with a lot of long-winded narration seemingly making up for narrative elements that were cut or never written. It's not terrible or broken; just deeply underwhelming, and a step back.

Fast forward six years and Ubisoft has just released a remastered version of Assassin's Creed 3, which comes bundled with all the DLC and Liberation, a spin-off set in New Orleans that was originally released for the PlayStation Portable. Yes, really. It's a hefty package, but does it fix any of the problems that blighted the original release? Well, some of them, a little. But for the most part the game's many issues are so deeply ingrained that no amount of remastering, short of a total Resident Evil 2-style remake, could fix them.

The most important change is to the stealth. You can now whistle to lure enemies while hiding in bushes, and take down two at once with a swift double assassination. Small changes, really, but the result is a game that is generally less frustrating. Some mission objectives have been adjusted to be less punishing also: evidence that this is more than just the same game upscaled.

Speaking of shiny things, the remaster looks a little prettier too. Softer shadows, more natural lighting, and warm, gold-tinged colour grading have given the visuals a boost, which is particularly evident in the sun-dappled, snow-covered forests of the frontier. However, some details such as character's faces feel, oddly enough, less detailed. A side effect of the new lighting, perhaps, rather than any kind of texture downgrade. But it's difficult to say for sure. It's no Odyssey, but it's way more handsome than it was six years ago.

Ultimately, AC3 catches the series in a moment of awkward transition. This was the last of the old guard, before Black Flag swept in and changed the way we think about the series: a decision that would eventually lead to the massive Witcher-style RPG that is Odyssey. It's a slow, clumsy game with a lot of creaky set-pieces. The combat feels like you're chaining slick animations together rather than actually fighting. And the story is mostly forgettable, despite having a few standout moments such as the Battle of Bunker Hill.

I was open to giving Assassin's Creed 3 another chance, wondering if time might have been kinder to it than my memories. But all this remaster has done is hammer home the fact that, in the pantheon of the series, this is undoubtedly the weakest link. It's also clear that this remaster was developed primarily for consoles, because honestly, it looked good enough on PC as it was. But hey, if you really feel the need to experience Connor's adventure again, this is a chance to do it with a sprinkling of new features and visual tweaks.

Search for Assassin's Creed 3 on the Uplay store and you'll only see the new remaster. The same is true on Steam but the original version's store page still exists. However, the purchase button has been removed and this text has been added: "Notice: At the request of the publisher, Assassin’s Creed® III is no longer available for sale on Steam." If you already own the game on either service you should still be able to download and play it. (I tested it on Uplay today and it worked fine.)

The same thing has happened with several other remastered games, like Sleeping Dogs for instance. While it's a shame players no longer have the option to save $10 or so by getting the cheaper version, and it's also a shame to lose the historical value of being able to compare both versions, you can see why a publisher wouldn't want players to be confused or accidentally buy the wrong one.

As well as graphical changes, the remastered version features free-aim archery, an improved minimap, more stealth options, double silent assassinations, and apparently the early ship section has been shortened.

"Assassin's Creed 3 system requirements" isn't something I thought I'd ever have to type again, but here we are, six years later, waiting for the imminent launch of Assassin's Creed 3 Remastered. It's due out in a week, so here's what you'll need to run revolutionary America in 4K. 

4K 30 fps

• Operating System: Windows 10 (64bit versions only) 
• Processor: Intel Core i7 4790 @ 3.6 GHz, AMD Ryzen 5 1500X @ 3.5 GHz
• RAM: 8GB
• Video Card: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070 or Radeon RX Vega56 or better
• Video Preset: High

Not too high for 4K, and not surprisingly it's quite a bit lower than Odyssey's 4K requirements, which recommends a GTX 1080. We'll need to wait until launch to see what we need to get a higher frame rate.

Minimum 1080 30 fps

• Operating System: Windows 7 SP1, Windows 8.1, Windows 10 (64bit versions only) 
• Processor: Intel Core i5 2400 @ 3.1 GHz, AMD FX 6350 @ 3.9 GHz
• RAM: 8GB
• Video Card: Nvidia GeForce GTX 660, AMD Radeon R9 270X (2GB VRAM with Shader Model 5.0)
• Video Preset: Lowest

Recommended 1080 30fps

• Operating System: Windows 7 SP1, Windows 8.1, Windows 10 (64bit versions only)
• Processor: Intel Core i5 3470 @ 3.2 GHz, AMD FX 8350 @ 4.0 GHz
• RAM: 8GB
• Video Card: Nvidia GeForce GTX 770 (4GB) or AMD Radeon R9 280X (3GB) or better
• Video Preset: High

 Recommended 1080 60fps

• Operating System: Windows 7 SP1, Windows 8.1, Windows 10 (64bit versions only)
• Processor: Intel Core i7 3770K @ 3.5 GHz, AMD FX 8350 @ 4.0 GHz
• RAM: 8GB
• Video Card: Nvidia GeForce GTX 970, AMD Radeon R9 290X
• Video Preset: High

As well as a visual upgrade, Assassin's Creed 3 Remastered also changes how you fire arrows, adds more stealth options and throws double assassinations in for fun. There are quite a few changes. 

It's due out on March 29, and you'll receive it automatically if you have the Assassin's Creed Odyssey season pass. 

Assassin's Creed III Remastered is shaping up to be more than just a prettier version of the polarising 2012 instalment: in addition to a range of graphical improvements, tweaks have been made to the way the game plays too, ranging from its approach to stealth through to its UI.

In a new video outlining the remaster, Ubisoft spokespeople confirm that firing arrows is now free-aim, in contrast to the original's finicky lock-on system. Players now have more stealth options too, with the ability to whistle from hidden areas in order to lure enemies. Double silent assassinations have been added, too. The mini-map has been improved too.

That all joins more cosmetic improvements: crowd density has been upped, with better skin shading and more natural, lifelike foliage. It was confirmed last year that the game will support 4K and HDR upscaling, and all original post-launch content will feature in the game, as well as a collection of outfits drawn from later games.

Here's the video outlining the changes, with a comparison trailer below it. Assassin's Creed 3: Remastered releases March 29. 

Ubisoft announced the release date for Assassin's Creed 3 Remastered today. This fancier version of the revolutionary (in setting, at least) third entry and its spin-off, Liberation, will launch on March 29. Check out how much has changed since the original in the comparison trailer above. 

It looks quite a bit nicer, doesn't it? But also, gosh that's a lot of yellow. Someone at Ubisoft is a Deus Ex: Human Revolution fan, clearly. Still, the lighting looks vastly improved, and the higher resolution textures make it easy to forget it's over six years old. There's 4K support and HDR support, too. 

As well as the main game and spin-off, you'll get the DLC, including that one where George Washington tries to become a king. It's good to have ambitions. They've also been updated. 

Season pass owners will get all of this automatically, but it will also be on sale separately. 

There are games like Doom that forever change their genres. Then there are games that don’t necessarily come to mind on a day-to-day basis, but which constantly re-enter the conversation when developers get together and talk. Far Cry 2 is a real developer's game: an imperfect gem to be sure, but one that changed the industry by changing how people thought about games.

Far Cry 2's central genius is that it’s an open world that doesn’t exist to glorify you, the player. At best, you’re a villain. Most of the time, you’re honestly of little consequence. The intro sets the scene with you as the world’s least prepared mercenary, visiting Africa on the hunt for a wanted weapons dealer called The Jackal. It goes poorly. Before you can even begin the hunt, you catch malaria, end up bed-ridden, and have the Jackal himself pop round to go through your things, point out that you’ve failed miserably and won’t be paid, before wandering off with a “So long.” Few games have been quite so happy to lower the stakes to something that non-existent.

Of course, you don’t just go home. Instead the mission quickly descends into the kind of nihilism that wouldn’t be matched until the underrated Spec Ops: The Line. You kill because that’s what you do, working for two factions who were criticised at the time for being basically the same collection of psychopathic arseholes before people realised that yes, that was the point. There are no good guys in Far Cry 2, and no glorious crusade to save the war-torn country from some handy moustache-twirling dictator. There is only war, malaria, death and greed.

As would become a series staple, Far Cry 2 had next to nothing to do with the game that came before it save for being a shooter, and certainly none of the mutants and other silly elements that slowly took over its storyline. The developers, led by Clint Hocking, explained that the goal was to capture the spirit of the series, though it often felt (maybe cynically) like the money-men just weren't paying attention until it was too late.

Far Cry was a level-based game that just happened to have really big, open-feeling levels. Far Cry 2 was a playground. True, it wasn’t completely open, in that the story was still tied together with missions and specific objectives, and no matter how much you drove around killing things, nothing would change until the plot dictated it did. But once you were actually on assignment, it was anything goes. Snipe enemies from a distance, steal a car and go smashing into a base, run in guns blazing, set things on fire…

What made Far Cry 2 different from the average open world game was how it managed to embrace the potential of this freedom without either descending into anarchy or coming across as ridiculous. You’re certainly no godlike presence. Along with needing regular malaria treatments to prevent vomiting your guts up at the worst possible time, every system and plot point is there to reinforce the darker elements of the setting—whether it’s tracking down blood diamonds or conducting brutal assassinations that can only lead to more trouble.

Another legacy of Far Cry 2: one of the all-time great game trailers, thanks to perfect pairing with Massive Attack's Angel.

More directly, even standard elements like taking a bullet go a little further than most. Get injured and you'll be ‘treated’ to unpleasant examples of your wounds being patched up in the field. Throughout the game you’re regularly paired with mercenary ‘buddies’ willing to lend a hand, drag your injured corpse out of danger and offer their own objectives, but none are saints. By the end of the game, the glitter of diamonds and chance of escape is more than enough to shatter any friendships.

Really, Far Cry 2 was to the military shooter what Deus Ex had been to sneaking around urban environments—a game that made those environments into another weapon, and gave them the weight that had been lacking from most prior open world games like 2006’s cartoony Just Cause, or GTA and its endless copycats. It was also first and foremost a shooter, unlike RPGs like Fallout 3 or the clunky hybrid that was Stalker. 

That greatly contributed to how smooth the action was, as well as the nature of Far Cry 2's basic play loops: clearing outposts, the simple act of navigating the world, and using its physics, tools and AI to prompt emergent action. These things made Far Cry 2 feel natural in small, vital ways. 

Everything from checking a real map to the effect of a grenade (spoiler: it explodes) flowed realistically from your basic understanding of reality, with no need to think of the action in terms of hit points, levels and game mechanics. If something felt like a good tactic then it probably was, and when things went horribly wrong or right, it was usually in a way that made for an interesting story.

Despite all this, Far Cry 2 can feel clunky today. Much of it did at the time, too. Particularly strange is the way that characters speak twice as fast as they should and without much of that human thing we call emotion. The shooting isn't the best the genre has to offer. And it’s hard not to chafe at NPCs you’re working for still taking a pop at you every time you meet their patrols, or the world being a bit too static—there being no way to carve out safe spaces or even permanently deal with an outpost. It’s fitting, but still annoying. It’s also unfortunate that despite all the strides taken with the open world, Far Cry 2 ultimately backtracked on an initial plan where the point of the game would be to simply track down and kill the Jackal, and you could ignore the story in favour of making a beeline for him and putting a bullet in his head. The actual game had no such possibility. A real pity.

What it accomplished in the end, however, is even more impressive. It entertained players, but more importantly inspired an industry to widen its perspective and explore the power that open worlds truly offered. Later games have refined these techniques, with elements appearing in everything from Ubisoft’s own Assassin’s Creed, to the later Just Cause games, to The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild.

Even where there isn’t direct influence from sitting down and playing Far Cry 2, there are few designers who haven’t at least heard whispered tales of what it accomplished and what it showed was possible. It may have spawned several official sequels over the past decade, but the true legacy of Far Cry 2 is the freedom it quietly inspired.

If you purchased the Assassin's Creed: Odyssey Gold edition, or purchased the game's season pass, you'll get access to a new remaster of Assassin's Creed 3 this March. First released in 2012, the original game is clearly ageing, so it's nice to see it getting some spit and polish.

According to an FAQ on the Ubisoft website, the remaster will boast higher resolution textures, new character models, a new Physically Based Rendering system for lighting, as well as denser crowds, environments and VFX. On top of all that, you'll be able to upscale the game to 4K and HDR. 

The information sheet also promises improved gameplay mechanics, with "several features being revamped or tweaked". But it doesn't specify what these changes are, as yet.

The remaster will come with all the usual post-launch content, such as Benedict Arnold Missions, the Hidden Secrets Pack, and all three episodes of the Tyranny of King Washington. You'll also get a copy of the Assassin's Creed: Liberation remaster, which was formerly a PS Vita exclusive. For more details on all that content, this has you covered. It's so far unclear when the remaster will be available as a standalone purchase, but I'd assume after the March 2019 initial release for season pass holders.

Chris Thursten reviewed Assassin's Creed 3 back in 2012, writing that its "entertaining storytelling and fantastic naval combat [is] marred by terrible mission design and endemic feature creep."