Like Part 1 was Haytham in the 1750s and Part 2 was Connor in the 1780s, or something like that.
Hell, maybe they should have broken it up into two games, like what happened with AC2 and Brotherhood. It was telling too many stories, with too many systems. Really though, I have a hard time imagining any scenario where AC3 actually pulled off all its goals, because it just had too many goals. I mean, imagine the Chocobo Breeding in Final Fantasy 7 - which was silly enough in context - except every time you do it, Barrett is glaring at you and pointing at the evil planet coming to kill everyone. but every time you pop out of the Animus, suddenly it's all OHMYGODWEREALLGONNADIEHURRYHURRYHURRY!!!! The difference in tone was completely jarring, and made me feel like the game was telling me not to play the game. It's everyone's favorite pseduointellectual game criticism: Ludonarrative Dissonance! The historical sections have an incredibly slow pace, and at times feel like they're more of a life simulator, where the player is being encouraged to hang out and do all these little side quests. Which points at another of my big complaints about the game. Building it out was by far my favorite part of the game, but it was also the most completely unnecessary from a design or plot perspective. It's like Connor is a completely different character on the Homestead.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed this. When you step into the Homestead Connor suddenly gains the two-dimensions he was lacking in the main campaign. Good lord can you tell this game was made by different teams.