If you enjoy the others, you'll probably have mixed reactions to Revolutions
After Assassins Creed, the series was positioned to be a huge franchise and a great story.
Assassins Creed II was a great sequel, continued the story well, and really started to attract a great fan following.
Brotherhood was a bit of a change of pace, continuing the story from ACII, and some people weren't happy with the fact that it was sort of a AC2.5.
Honestly, Revolutions is AC2.75. The story and gameplay is okay when you're in the animus, but the Desmond story is really weak in my opinion. It doesn't have the same amount of detail and fun factor that the previous games have, and it feels like the series is falling flat.
I hope I'm wrong, because I love the AC games, but this game was a major letdown thanks to the high bar set by the previous games.
Revolutions removes horse travel...I'll be honest, I loved AC for this especially. What other game can you come down a path on a horse and see people traveling to and from Jerusalem, and fight Templars along the way?
The addition of bombs is kind of an average point. To be totally honest, I'm scared that the series is going towards the modern era because gunpowder could really change the whole franchise and I don't think it would be as fun. It's already not much fun to dodge getting shot at. AC was about swordplay and freerunning, and I'd prefer it to say there.
The Desmond portions of the game are optional, but the 1st-person platforming is a total waste. It's annoying to do, and honestly I will skip the rest. Total waste of time, I can't repeat that enough.
The previous games let you explore the cities and brought in a measure of conspiracy that was really refreshing and well planned. Revolutions completely lacks that type of deep though, and it really shows.
I hope that the next game completely revitalizes the path that Revolutions seems to be heading down. I love this series and really liked the storyline, but Revolutions doesn't do the prior games justice.