I would say no. 2 improved on pretty much everything from 1, which is pretty meh.
The games do kind of a s*** job explaining the story, though, so there are some cutscenes you might want to look up to have things make sense. Not really worth it just for the story, though. 1 sucks compared to the Ezio Trilogy.
EDIT: Also, forgot to mention, do not get the Ezio Trilogy collection. It makes the games significantly more buggy, and in a series that already has it's fair share of glitches, that's unacceptable.
In 1984, I was hospitalized for approaching perfection.
I felt AC1 was the strongest. Sure, it got a little repetitive, but everything you did to an extent made sense of why and how you do it, where AC2 breaks some of these. Pick pocket, for example, is a little more difficult in AC1 because you have to steal from their pocket while they aren't noticing. AC2 you just brush by them.
PSN ID: Troll_Face_Flame (formerly armyflame) X360 gamertag: ArmyFlame9 The more people post on GameFaqs, the more I lose faith in humanity.