@ the boring stuff:
True, I could play the jungle levels over and over again, it was fun. But when looking at the overall picture, the game levels only fell in several categories: there were jungle, and 'indoor tech science/laboratory' segments. That way, every 'level' kinda felt basically the same for me, either open and green or closed and dark. Also, one did most of the work by oneself, there were no real interesting plot developments and I don't really recall any humour in the game. That's what made it a tad bit boring for me at times.
@ the all fps look/feel/sound the same:
This is true, whenever a game breaks this rule however, I consider it a revolution to the FPS genre.
@ the weapons:
Blood has a great diversity of weapons, plus several neat alternate fire modes. Sure, there's your average shotgun, but the rest of the weapons were quite inventive. Who'd think of using a flare gun, a gas can, a tesla thingie, not to mention the life leech and the voodoo doll. The weapons in Far Cry were of course more realistic, but IMO they just served the purpose of killing period. (The weapons in) Blood served the purpose of killing stuff violently.
@ the gore:
In Blood, one can put people on fire, even kick away severed heads. In Far Cry, I couldn't even gib an enemy, no matter how hard I shot a rocket at it. That just doesn't feel right...
Mind you that I consider it a revolution when an FPS comes and does something completely innovating and different. If this innovating thing is 'borrowed' from an earlier shooter, I don't think it's innovative, as it was done before. Yet, if people add good stuff from previous shooters to one package, I'd say that game would be revolutionary,