October is turning out to be a great month for “Assassin’s Creed” fans. Next Tuesday, “Assassin’s Creed III” drops and will likely deliver one of the best gaming experiences of the year. And early Monday afternoon, it was officially reported that Michael Fassbender will star in and co-produce a film adaptation of the series.

The announcement ends months of speculation surrounding Fassbender and the series. Ubisoft, the game’s developer, said its own film production company will collaborate with the production company New Regency. Fassbender will presumably play the overarching character of the series, Desmond Miles, though the setup of the games means he could be playing three or four characters over the course of the films.

Here’s the good news: Ubisoft is apparently dedicated to ensuring the quality of the film. They’ve demanded complete creative control, which is important when a film is trying to tell a story as intricate and complex as “Assassin’s Creed.”

But there’s tons of bad news accompanying this as well.

First, the awful track record of video game movies must be considered. There’s “Street Fighter,” “Mortal Kombat,” “Resident Evil,” “Lara Croft: Tomb Raider,” “Hitman,” “Max Payne” and the list goes on and on. All great, classic games. But in a list compiling the 30 most popular video game movies, no film has a Rotten Tomatoes score above 43 percent. Ubisoft is going to correct all of that, right?

Maybe. The last time a game company was so invested in an adaptation was when Bungie, the “Halo” developers, tried to get a film made out of that series. They got close, as Peter Jackson signed on to produce, bringing his protege, Neill Blomkamp, aboard to direct. That project eventually collapsed and fans were instead treated to Blomkamp’s “District 9.”

Ubisoft’s last attempt to adapt a game was 2010’s “Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time.” The film starred Jake Gyllenhaal and was easily one of the best film adaptations of a game in a long time. But that doesn’t mean it was worth anyone’s time.

I’m trying to stay optimistic about an “Assassin’s Creed” film. Much like Christopher Nolan took the character of Batman and made a trilogy of amazing, thought-provoking flicks, the series has the potential to be fashioned into a timely, exciting piece of filmmaking.

The casting of Fassbender gives me hope. Assuming sequels are made, Fassbender could play not only Desmond, but Altair, the main character of the first game, and Ezio, the protagonist of “Assassin’s Creed II,” “Brotherhood,” and “Revelations.” Even a new character, Connor Kenway, is set to be introduced in “AC:III.”

Each game’s main character is a dynamic, complex figure, giving Fassbender quite the task to tackle all of them. But there’s no actor I can think of who would do it better. The role also has the potential to make Fassbender a household name, as “Lara Croft: Tomb Raider” did for Angelina Jolie.

It’s not Fassbender or his acting abilities that I’m worried about. I’m afraid that New Regency, which hasn’t produced a good movie since Darren Aronofsky’s 2006 masterpiece, “The Fountain,” will interfere too much to transform the game into a run-of-the-mill shoot ’em up action movie.

Gods of Hollywood, I have but one request: Please do not mess up “Assassin’s Creed.” Please don’t take one of the most beautiful, intelligent games in history and turn it into a brainless action movie.

Ubisoft has created a wonderful series of games and an amazing universe through which characters interact with one another. I can only hope the studios don’t squander that in an attempt to make money.