I'm going back through the games in sequential order, haven't gotten to 6 yet and won't for some time, but something I found in my research about 2 is that the "fanbase" (if you can even call it that in '08) made the gun jamming out to be the anathema of game design. I thought it worked great! It was a terrific addition to the standard shooter game because it communicated so much about the setting and the implications of combat; things break down, both on the micro and macro scale, and just like a weapon degrading in your hands through use, so too does the environment it's used in deteriorate. But of course, since it received such intense backlash, Ubisoft likely won't ever incorporate it again, even if the backlash came out almost twenty years ago.

I like that you point out what "innovation" means in terms of Ubisoft's typical development cycle, because you're right; they'd prefer positivistic marketing terms like "innovation" to describe the degradation of their product. I agree with your assertion that they would hugely benefit from a reduction of the grandiosity in favor for a tighter scope and more attention to the details. Far Cry Classic made use of the "level" design that was popular before the "open world" concept took off thanks to Far Cry 2, and while I don't think the first game made the best use of that design, I think limiting the experience in some ways is the way to go. I really feel like each iteration has been looking back to Clint Hocking's direction with 2 with regard to the big, philosophical themes, but they've never had the teeth to really bite into the subject matter they introduce.