Thinking about it this week, I feel I've figured out one of the big driving problems with Remember Me. I forget the episode, but Extra Credits made a point that, in game development, while you can definitely create the story first and the gameplay second, the safer move is to do the opposite and build a story around the gameplay. In the second option, even if the story makes no sense or is drivel, the gameplay probably has enough redeeming qualities to look past the story and enjoy multiple playthroughs, while the first option means players are more likely to slog through uninspired or forced gameplay all for the sake of a story.
How does this apply here? Seeing as how the original concept for Remember Me when it was originally titled Adrift had to do with a flooded, Water World styled...world, it makes me think the team was doing exactly what EC warned about--trying to come up with an interesting story first and forcing gameplay around the story. While the memory manipulation mechanic seems to follow suit with the story, the combat and exploration seem off. Or rather, it seems like those were aspects that were included not because they necessarily fit with what the game was trying to do thematically, but rather because it seemed like an easy way to bridge the story together. Based on the story I've seen and read so far, it would make sense to me to have changed Remember Me from an action game to a full puzzle, possibly stealth espionage game. Or, if they wanted to stick with combat so much, remove the memory mechanic and just make it cyber-punk Bourne with a female protagonist. That way the focus on pure combat and exploration for gameplay would've hopefully forced the developers to tighten or actually expand on the combat rather then let it fall short the way it did.
I think Remember Me will serve as an interesting example of what not to do in game design, that is to focus on the game element first and to place your focus on elements one at a time rather then spreading it out.