Ok sry for being rude. I just often see people bashing ME2 and 3 for their mistakes/just because they were different and basically revering ME1 and forgiving and forgetting its mistakes. I also see a lot of posts hoping ME:A is more like ME1 than the sequels etc.

As I said in the OP I love all three games (almost equally) and agree that they all have their strengths and weaknesses.

I just think the exploration element held ME1 back, you are forced to use it in the main story and since I'm a big ME fan I like to do the necessary& good side missions at least.

The Mako didn't add anything to the game because all the worlds were the same copy& pasted. And if they included it in ME2 and 3 the games would have been completely different.

You would always have to force a Mako and have big enough areas for it to drive etc. Bioware smartly realized that it was more trouble than it was worth and scrapped it.

Instead we got better crafted levels with more detail and variety. The areas could have been bigger but were overall very good.

And of course I don't expect 40 different levels but then I would expect them to value quantity over quality as many of the side missions were forgettable. H

How did they prioritize story? It was basically always just fighting through the same old two levels and at the end there was a conversation most of the time and thats it. Hardly anything groundbreaking...

And you had to use cover in ME1 as well, wtf? Its essential if you are not playing on easy or normal. The difference was just that it had a shitty overheat system and was clunky in general. ME2 just improved it and made it enjoyable thats it.