All three points i made happened to both in both movies, they could have tackled the whole thing differently, but no they handled it the same and to me both movies felt the very similar.

How about having Doc Connors investors get impatient with him and try kill him in a lab accident to cover up loses but it ends up his formula "works" and boom! Total different scenario to first movie (which i just made up in about a minute of thinking), but no they have him getting cut off (Like Norman was) and then he goes mad and tests it on himself (Like Norman did) and then he spends time talking to himself (Like Norman did).. I myself would have preferred if they went with a different villain and not have a story play out to feel like the story in Raimi's first Spiderman.

Faithful to the source material? Gwen and Peter don't meet in highschool, but then again im sure there is probably some rebooted comic where she does, but MJ has always been Peters first and constant love interest. And the uncle Ben scene plays out pretty much the same, So its not exactly more faithful, the only different thing they did cover which they didnt in the first movies was the parents side story, which to me is a sidestory they could do without, or atleast handled it more vaguely to when they wanted to go into that story in more depth, it takes up far too much screen time in the second one and made them rush the ending.

What i will say is Garfield is a better Parker/Spideyman and the chemistry between Gwen and him is good, however i feel she should have been MJ and not Gwen.