So are lots and lots of people finding this better than the first?
Personally I think the first is MASSIVELY better, this is still a superb game but, combat feels easier, more repetitive but better flowing levels I guess. But scale wise its been hugely cut back which really for me, takes away from that massive epic feel of the first game.
UI wise I think its all a lot worse and the weapons/armour, while the ridiculous levels of kit/not great storage system was a little off in the first game, it feels way to limited in ME2.
Story wise its still compelling, brilliant, with some great locations and battles, some great characters, but its glossing over a few to many plot issues for my liking.
I'd put this at a 9 and the first at a 10, but with the gap being pretty huge between them. Still one of the best games I've played though, which is why it feels weird to complain, it just could have been so much better. I think a LOT of the things I have issue with really do just stink of "we've only got a year to make this one, so everything has to be scaled back to fit in the story". Which is the best way to cut back if you have to cut back, however I'd prefer for it to be far more expansive, and take 18 months for a sequal, or 2 years and do it right.
Basically as Matmulder highlighter, itemisation and deeper skills are missing basically, but when you consider the design time and extra testing and problems involved with more skills and more weapons/items, well, thats where it smells like a time limit.
Basically a new story and improved UI in terms of choosing weapons and inventory, but everything the same, just a few different skills would have been perfect, this is close but missing those last few things to make it a truly brilliant game.