I say they're just save footing, I'm pretty sure (At least I hope) that the Americans could "handle it".

Man the media is just redonkulous sometimes..

Didn't Ubi say he would be neutral at first? Now all we see is him taking out Brits

Why does a concept like this even need to be in a videogame?

It's different than their previous games. The lines of good and evil were blurred in the time of AC II and its spinoffs, it was about intrigue between families where no-one was really aligned one way or another, and we've looked back historically at the Crusades as one where no-one was in the right again (brutality on all sides, modern fundamentalist Christians aren't that invested in it because it was Catholic and the Catholics have disowned it, and the Muslims weren't demonized in ACI)

In this case you're coming up to an event that is clearly loved in a black-and-white kind of way in America. I mean, there are all sorts of games out there where you kill Americans, random, sometimes innocent, Americans, so clearly there's no problem with slaying Americans as such, but if you're playing a game where you are, albeit indirectly, fighting against the American Revolution, well, i don't think that would go over well. I'd imagine the French would have a problem with an Assassin's Creed game where the main character is in the employ of the Aristocrats in 1789, assigned to massacre sans-cullotes.

Either there will be some plot twist, or there is no point in the game where you fight colonists. If they wanted to be really edgy, they could have had you play as a runaway slave. Maybe in part 4

Nah you'll probably kill more of the British so Americans wont mind at all, unless they would mind the multiplayer.

Define ancestors

That seems like a pretty good reason, but Kotaku gonna Kotaku.

Why do people think you need to "handle" a video game is my question. They are not real characters, so I would hope my fellow Americans wouldn't get butt-hurt over a few polygons dying.