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 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.