Basically the title. Old game but I finally got it on sale, I don't care about fighting for the invading brown people, especially when I'm roleplaying as a Rennaisance-era Christian European. What were they thinking.
AC1: I'm an Arab ninja taking out Crusaders currently invading my homeland. Great.
AC2: I'm a rennaisance Italian ninja in a blood feud against another family of rennaisance Italians. Perfect.
AC2B: I'm the same Italian ninja liberating Rome from the the invading corrupt Italians. This makes sense.
AC2R: I'm the same Italian and I'm siding with the Turks in crushing the remenants of Constantinople. What. The OBVIOUS choice was liberating Constantinople from invading corrupt Ottomans. Byzantines who, wait for it, would have called themselves ROMANS at the time. This was so obvious, what were they smoking.
EDIT: Everything else was great though. I enjoyed the cutscenes and the Altair-Ezio-Desmond finale. But the gameplay story (ie most of the fucking game) was ass.
I mentioned in a comment the other day that I haven't bought an Ubisoft game in over a decade -- the last one was the Prince of Persia reboot that came out in the 360/PS3 era. It was like they Disneyfied the Prince of Persia formula and made it impossible to lose.
Sands of Time and The Two Thrones were both pretty great. I've probably played through Sands of Time at least 10 times. Warrior Within's combat was so damn tedious that I've never replayed it, despite trying on multiple occasions.
For me, I gave up on Ubisoft games when they started requiring you to get a UPlay account and register it and play it with their launcher even if you bought it on a different platform. And not only do they have the additional launcher, but from everything I've read they're still struggling to figure out Offline Mode with said launcher.