From what I've heard ME1 only had 1 layout for each terrain type (all 3 or 4 types) for side quests though and that's completely unacceptable.
Story missions all took place in unique locales. Side quests took place in copy-pasted buildings, caves and mines, yes. There was about 5 locations max for like 20 or 30 side-quests. I guess it kinda makes sense for pre-fab buildings, but the rest doesn't.
Mass Effect 2 had tons of levels which were just corridor after repetitive corridor against the same old enemies. There was rarely a need to use new tactics and for the most part it was just a grindy shoot and loot to the next cutscene.
Depends on how you play. As a boring old Soldier, yeah it became a bit boring. As a Vanguard? Tons of fun dislodging baddies from cover, and you had to adapt much more if you ask me. Scions were meant to be taken at range. Abominations meant GTFO of here. Goons with flamethrowers were to be avoided at all costs, preferably blown up via squadmate powers. Ymir mechs meant Heavy Weapon time. Even Varrens or mecha-dogs forced you to take at range or risk taking lots of damage from the small buggers. Enemy Vanguards or Engineers were priority targets as they could easily distrupt you with biotics or abilities. Whereas in ME1 I mostly ran around almost invincible holding down the fire button at whoeer was facing me for 30 seconds since it took forever to kill something. The Rachni and Krogan were the only enemies who forced me to change tactics.
Mass Effect the first had a lot more balance to it - more frequent variety in enemies (and character classes that had distinct advantages/disadvantages against certain types)
As I just said, imo the sequel was much better at this.
the levels had a better ratio of combat to exploration and puzzle-solving
True. Wish that would return.
there were more town-type areas with more quests situated in them
Not sure about that. There was the Citadel (admitedly it was pretty big), the first level of Noveria, and I guess a small part of Feros. ME2 had the Citadel, Omega, Tuchanka and Illium. Oh, and both had the Normandy too. It's pretty equal on these terms, rally.
Combat worked because it was one relatively small part of the whole - pretty bad on its own, but given emotional and narrative weight and purpose, it was enough to carry things forward.
Except for me it didn't for me. Combat bogged down the whole experience most of the time. It was clunky, unbalanced and generally not fun, and I just wanted it to be over already so that I could get to the good parts again. The fat that the rest is good doesn't excuse the combat being such a chore, and since ME was an action-RPG from the start it relied a lot on it's combat.
That's really what I want to see in Mass Effect 3. I already know it's going to involve shooting dudes, and that there's going to be more guns and powers and whatever. I don't care if the combat is even more like Gears of War or if it's tactical and turn-based... it's how it fits into the rest of the experience that matters. Even the best mechanics grow tiresome if they're used poorly. Doing my own game design has really opened my eyes to how bloated, padded, uninspired and lazy most games are (even good ones), and as such I have little tolerance for games that draw from the "if it's fun for one hour, it's fun for ten hours!" school of thought.
I guess I can't really help you here. They have stated they would try to put more diversity in the action (just from the latest gameplay trailer you see that the objective was to run like hell, not sit around taking potshots). Plus, from the enemies we saw already, tactics will be more important, as many have abilities that can dislodge Shepard from cover, should spice up most battles. Hell, enemies in the DLCs started throwing Flash-Bangs and crushing cover, and it already made the combat more hectic and fun.
