I'm really struggling to see where you think OP implied that..

Assassin's Creed is one of my favorite franchises, the concept is definitely very unique.

The Simpsons Sid Meier did it before.

Thanks to him we could fly historic airplanes in dogfights (Spitfire/Hellcat Ace), control a submarine in historic missions (Silent Service), build a railroad empire in USA and Europe (Railroad Tycoon series), enjoy the pirate life (Pirates!), build a civilization from ground up (Civilization series), conquer the Americas (Colonization), fight historic battles in the American civil war (Gettysburg)...

Many Civilization expansions and scenarios also focused on important parts of our history.

As a history teacher, I do really love getting to see historic locations and portrayals of people and events. Same with the Total War series recreating ancient battles for years.

Never played it. I own AC 2, AC,3, and I think......Brotherhood on PS3, but they are still in the original wrapping. Once it became obvious the annualization of the series would be the new norm when Revelations was released, I was burnt out on it without ever having tried it ( although I did end up buying AC 3 Liberation on Vita for $25 ). With 3 mainline games in my backlog, and a guaranteed new one every year, + spinoffs on DS and Vita, it was over before it started. Plus, Ubi began to suck in general around this time. I also hate the fact that you are tempted to spend money to get ability points in Origins. :)

in concept, yes, i agree with you. but in practice, the series began with a lot of potential and each game just added more ground to what the series could be, but i dont think its full potential was ever realized in any one game for that reason. its comparable to Pokemon in a sense. every game introduces new features, new locations, new things to love about the series, etc. but youre still haunted by the fact that there will never be one game that will utilize all of it, leaving some games feeling weaker than others, and leaving the fanbase to constantly dispute which one is the best.

that is not what I mean but "Dragons and shit"

I absolutely love fantasy games. Particularly RPGs. Final Fantasy, The Witcher, Dragon Quest, Zelda, etc. I was just trying to highlight that AC is rare in that it tries to actually make games based on our history. 

It was great when it actually had a story. Now it's just bumbling around in some ancient society for nothing. I actually do not have much of a problem with their DLC because I do not give two shits about the ancient story and the games always deliver more than enough content, that I'm not tempted to go for the micro transactions.

It was cool when we still had Abstergo, but now it's just another open world game.

Yeah, the original concept has really suffered though. They jumped the shark a long time ago in order to stop the story ever coming to a conclusion and turn the franchise into an annualized cash cow. The recent SJW outrage bullshit is an indication of how the original idea about historical bloodlines, the backbone of the thing, has been totally dismantled in favor of all kinds of frivolous crap.

But we have all sorts of games out there that are either loosely based on real history, or follow as much history as possible. We've got Dynasty Warriors and it's silly and loose focus on history. We've got all sorts of turn based and tactics strategy games that focus on real wars that happened centuries/decades ago.

Creed isn't doing anything new exactly. If anything it's following exactly what DW is doing, by introducing silly things, while also trying to follow some semblance of history. it's gone from a stealth assassination game, to a mixed bag RPG world tour style game (Which screams the "ubisoft model").