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.
Right, they don't claim historical accuracy at all. They just get tons of puff pieces in the press about history, like these:
https://gamerant.com/assassins-creed-ubisoft-games-historically-accurate-ranked/#assassin-s-creed-iv-black-flag-2013
https://mashable.com/article/best-assassins-creed-historical-characters
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/gamesblog/2010/nov/19/assassin-s-creeed-brotherhood-history
https://medium.com/@merlincheng/why-assassins-creed-is-great-for-learning-history-40e895e8ea0e
And Ubisoft's own history content which conveniently doesn't discuss what sort of changes they made:
https://news.ubisoft.com/en-us/article/6d4zQXyH0VF6z75Ab7jfss/discover-the-real-history-behind-every-assassins-creed
Look at what you are taking seriously: GamerRant, Mashable, The Guardian, Medium, and Ubisoft.
Magic is not real. Alien gods aren't real. The Crusades are not a Templar conspiracy to summon an alien god to take over the world. Please stop.
The story of AC is unironically closer to real life than “anatomically modern humans sat around jerking off in caves for 290,000 years until inventing agriculture 10,000 years ago”.
Sure, I guess, but I could say the same thing for anything else I just made up.
If you want to complain about what you think the timeframe of the development homo sapiens are through the stone age, that's fine, but don't be reductive as it won't help your argument.
I think you're confusing the big lies with the little ones. No one cares about the big lies. They're laughable. It's the little lies that are insidious, such as Leonardo DaVinci being a homo, Ben Franklin being a sex crazed deviant, or the Sultan of Constantinople being an enlightened liberal secular humanist. Those are the kind of lies they want people to simply accept without realizing it when presented in a "historical" fiction.
Sure, then bring that complaint to the AC that took place in Egypt and had a tutorial level for classroom demonstration. That is where that complaint lies.
Everything else you're pushing is bananas.