Now I quite enjoyed the whole set in the future thing. To me it added an extra dimension to the game.
Sure, if
Assassin's Creed were a one-off game, then the futuristic element would be pointless, but as a trilogy, it gives it more depth.
I agree with the abruptness of the ending though (and the fact that no swimming is a bithc). It threw me too. And as a result, I can't wait five years for the next one!

Actually, it would be more like two - Ubisoft now have a functioning engine (the
Scimitar Engine), and the whole idea mapped out, so it won't take them years to get everything sorted. Instead, they can go straight on to the storyline, and the development stages.
However, the studio that made it, Ubisoft Montreal, also make the Splinter Cell, Rainbow 6, and Prince of Persia games, not to mention Far Cry, so it may be a while before more resources can be diverted at the team within the studio for them to make the second game.
---
Bit of trivia - the success of Assassin's Creed effectively saved Ubisoft from being bought out by EA. Just think, had Jade Raymond and her team really f'ed it up, then we'd be seeing a lot of potentially good games with 12fps framerates, shite online functionality, and built to the Microsoft philosophy (
if it works, it works. No point tinkering with it to get rid of bugs. Patches can do that once the product is out).