Pretty much in the title. Is it worth putting the time into the original, or should I read the plot overview on wikipedia?

Without a doubt skip to II. I don't even think you need to read a wiki.

The sequel has all of the gameplay elements and more from what made the original interesting so I think you can skip it. You can totally wiki the story beats, but I'm pretty sure each Assassin's game gives a "story so far" -- intro anyway. The first game can be arduous, on a mechanical level, the gameplay isn't as refined as the future games; still fun though.

Watch it on youtube or read a wiki.  I like 1 but not a lot of people seem to like it anymore.

Skip.

Skip

If you can get it on the cheap at least give it a try, you might like it, I did. 
 
But if at any point you can't stand to finish it just sell it back and go right to AC2.

Idunno. If you're patient and have some time to kill, I'd suggest playing through the original...

Be warned though - it is tedious and repetitive, but I personally really dig how you get to get a feel for how it all started in number one, before jumping to the sequels.

The original is not bad, just repetitive. If you only went for the main assassinations, with the bare-minimum of investigations it's a decent enough game. 
 
There's some decent backstory stuff you'll miss out if you skip it entirely; the modern-day stuff especially has some nice tidbits hidden away if you seek them out between Animus sessions.

I think the first game gets way more flack than it deserves, the second game and it aren't as different as people make them out to be.  I'm kinda done with the series as a whole though as the gameplay is starting to get stale to me, so I might recommend skipping ahead so you can experience the better ones before you get burnt out if you do.  Consecutive years is killing this franchise for me.  

I really don't know where all the criticism for Assassin's Creed is coming from. I thought it was an amazing game. The only downside are the repetitive side missions. The combat isn't like II or Brotherhood and there is no currency system. It feels more original to the idea. The story sets up Desmond's more than Altair's.

It was hair pulling to get through the first game for me, but I felt the story was good enough to force me to see it through. That said, if you don't have a lot of time to spend, I'd recommend reading a quick summary of the first game and moving on. Assassin's Creed 2 and Brotherhood are vastly more fun games to play.

I still think it's a great game, but advancements made in the later games will make it harder to enjoy if you ever go backward.
It's cheap as hell by now, no reason not to try it.

The first AC isn't a terrible game, it just lets you down more often than not. I've seen brand new copies of the game for ten bucks, so I would buy it for that kind of a deal. If you can do that then I suggest giving it a try. If you just aren't enjoying yourself then there is no shame in putting it down and reading a wiki. Just remember that AC II is superior in pretty much every way and don't let any bad experiences with AC I turn you off of the whole series, because II and Brotherhood are really good and worth your time. 
 
If you can find it cheap, get the first one and try it. If not, read a wiki.

Without a doubt skip to II. I don't even think you need to read a wiki.

I also insist that the first game isn't terrible. It would, however, be inferior to 2, while not offering you a whole lot of story that you couldn't get from a wiki somewhere online. I feel burned out on the premise enough just playing through 2 alone... I don't know how I'd make it through playing both back to back. Already wondering if Brotherhood is going to be possible for me to trudge through.

Youtube the cut scenes. Then play 2.

@Ahmad_Metallic said:

@admanb: it depends. Do you wanna enjoy the story of the franchise and know what's going on and know who Altair is (they won't stop talking about him in AC2 and it's semi-sequels) Or do you just wanna have fun ?

If you skip Assassin's Creed, you skip the basis and the very foundation of the franchise. It's not like it's outdated or horrible, it had a couple of flaws but it's a very stellar current-gen experience, with arguably one of the greatest atmospheres ever, and a real badass protagonist

@Barrock said:

Without a doubt skip to II. I don't even think you need to read a wiki.

AC2, ACB and ACR are all related to AC1. ACR is even ABOUT going after the protagonist of AC1 and finding his remains/something along those lines.. are you high or just trolling here?

Not high or trolling. I didn't enjoy Assassin's Creed 1. And it looks like I'm not the only one.

@Barrock said:

Without a doubt skip to II. I don't even think you need to read a wiki.

I almost never recommend this. You should play the first and just play the bare minimum of missions. Play the core story.

Do all you need to do to get the story missions. The whole process of finding out info, then deciding on the best way to assassinate a dude was a ton of fun for me. That is the one thing I miss about Assassin's Creed, it is the strongholds that you have to sneak into to kill a honky. And I played Assassin's Creed 1 last year.

Good question. There's a part of me that want's to recommend that you should play the first game.
 
Why?
Because it's not a good game. The story is convoluted, without context, and has little to no resolution. The game mechanics are functional, but the design is hindered with repetition and it's poorly thought-out. It's also not really engaging at all. 
If you were to ask a lot of people when that game came out, that it would be considered a pretty big franchise in the near future, I think a lot of people would kinda scoff and shake their heads.
 
One of the main reasons what makes the second game fantastic, is how it goes after pretty much all the problems the original game had like a surgeon cleaning up after himself. The core game design is entirely redone, even the story is elevated in a manner that's almost alien in comparison to the previous game. 
There are so many times when a developer just ignores criticism altogether, or just muddles around the issues the previous game had. The developers of Assassins Creed took that bold extra mile with it's sequel, and I feel like you might actually miss-out that level of appreciation that the second game accomplishes, if you skip the first entry.  
 
Edit: Yikes, first sentence initiated paragraph of thoughts regarding the first game, but stated that I was about to talk about the second game. o_O

All the relevant story bits in I are at the very end. By that time however, I was completely sick of the game. That's why I stopped playing at the 70% completion mark and instead watched the ending on YouTube. 
 
ACII on the other hand is one of the best games I have ever played. 
 
SKIP

@Ahmad_Metallic said:

@Barrock said:

Without a doubt skip to II. I don't even think you need to read a wiki.

AC2, ACB and ACR are all related to AC1. ACR is even ABOUT going after the protagonist of AC1 and finding his remains/something along those lines.. are you high or just trolling here?

Not high or trolling. I didn't enjoy Assassin's Creed 1. And it looks like I'm not the only one.

@Ahmad_Metallic said:

@Barrock said:

@Ahmad_Metallic said:

@Barrock said:

Without a doubt skip to II. I don't even think you need to read a wiki.

AC2, ACB and ACR are all related to AC1. ACR is even ABOUT going after the protagonist of AC1 and finding his remains/something along those lines.. are you high or just trolling here?

Not high or trolling. I didn't enjoy Assassin's Creed 1. And it looks like I'm not the only one.

Whether you enjoyed it or not is irrelevant. You're misleading this person and making him think that AC1 is an abomination that isn't related to the sequel in any way, even though you KNOW that a big part of AC2 is related to Altair, and that the upcoming AC:R will be all about Ezio's connection with Altair yet you tell this guy to not even read the game's wiki? way to go, trying to ruin his experience and understanding of the story.

I played around 30% of AC I. Maybe not even that much. Yet I S Ranked and completely understood both 2 and Brotherhood. I'm just offering up my point of view.

@Barrock said:

Without a doubt skip to II. I don't even think you need to read a wiki.

I almost never recommend this. You should play the first and just play the bare minimum of missions. Play the core story.

I feel like people who haven't played Assassin's Creed don't really understand what other people mean when they say it's repetitive.  
 
Have you ever played an open world game with really boring cookie cutter side missions that you can only do once before you hate them?  That's all Assassin's Creed is.  And nothing about the game is redeeming enough to offset that.
 
The only thing that got worse from 1 to 2 is jumping into piles of hay.  Don't ask me how they screwed that up.

I think the first game gets way more flack than it deserves, the second game and it aren't as different as people make them out to be.  I'm kinda done with the series as a whole though as the gameplay is starting to get stale to me, so I might recommend skipping ahead so you can experience the better ones before you get burnt out if you do.  Consecutive years is killing this franchise for me.  

Skip.

I liked it at the time but by today's standards it would be pretty bad. You should read the wiki for the story and skip to Assassins Creed II.

The Desmond bits are really the only parts worth knowing about the first game, I'd suggest youtubing those and jump right into AC2.