ME1 wasn't even going to release on the PC initially, so I think we could be worse off. - Edit 2
Before modification by Zalis at 22/01/2011 11:02:53 PM
And that's fine; I agree that ME2 was more fun to kill things in than ME1, mostly (global cooldowns sucked). But the story was just... so... meh. I enjoyed it a great deal, but Super Terminator dude had me actually laughing. Sovereign, on the other hand, gave me chills.
Sovereign was a much better villain. There's no doubt there. Most of the gameplay mechanics Bioware trimmed in ME2 were things they were new at in ME, having only made more traditional RPGs in the past.
It's the Morrowind/Oblivion debate all over again, really. My personal preferences tend to lean more toward tons of options and a rich story, instead of the more streamlined things of recent years (Fallout 3, Oblivion, Mass Effect 2). I know it's not entirely the consoles' fault, but the "simplify everything" mindset that accompanies them is making some of my favorite series less fun.
I just don't think we can blame ME2's story changes on the consoles when it was originally going to be an Xbox exclusive series anyway. It's middle child trilogy syndrome and the story had a much different structure. (buildup for one op with small stories everywhere, rather than a longer series of unraveling a mystery plot) The exploration is something I missed, with each planet's content being cut in half and being more mission-oriented, but that's about it. Aside from ME2 being a different part of the overall story arc, I preferred it in nearly way. It may not have been as good of a story, but it was better at telling the story it told. (at the risk of sounding redundant)
Fallout 3's dumbing-down had just as much to do with Bethesda taking the series as it did with consoles. The previous Fallout games weren't sandbox titles, and that's pretty much all Bethesda can make. (despite Morrowind being brilliant)