I can understand Arwin's view. While the shooting aspects are ok and much better than in the first game, it's still some ways off from regular shooter games. I think it played pretty good, but I never even complained about the first game
I see plenty of similar complaints from other people over at Eurogamer. However, I will say that trying the demo on PC just now with my new GPU (5570 - stuck with low-profile in my small casing) was enlighting. The game controls and runs much better, and I never even saw the hacking mini-games in the PS3 version - were they even there?
This demo had a different second mission, which gave a slightly better impression in that you could do stuff like argue with a guard over torture and gain paragon points for talking him out of it, stuff like that. When he gave in though, it was very suspect. In general, everything is layed on really thick, and every bit of the demo seems to strongly push you in a certain direction, but I guess there is freedom here and there too.
It feels a lot like an American version of Final Fantasy XIII ... Is that a strange thing to say? There's still way too much fighting in here. Also, whomever wrote this game should steal from better examples. For instance, the opening medical emergency thing - why not just steal some stuff from House for that instead of just sticking with 'higher dose' as the culmination of that completely unexciting moment. Maybe even give control to the player to help save yourself.
Ah well. At least I can see why people will like this game. Still don't think I do, but I'm more interested now than I was before.
Oh, and this game is WAAAAY better with the mouse. I can't imagine why anyone would want to play it with a pad on PC (well , maybe the couch thing).