>>96842356
Regardless of the content SF2e got (because frankly we're still talking about the same system as PF2e really), it has failed to solve one particular problem: ranged combat is deathly boring. PF is a melee-focused system and a lot of its mechanics are made with the assumption you're going to end up point-blank to your opponent (flanking, AoOs, Athletics actions, higher damage for melee - just a few examples). Consequently for ranged characters there's not much to do - have fun doing your Strike x3 and Aid once in a while if your GM is willing to throw you a bone. SF 2e does nothing to alleviate this despite supposedly going all in on the "ranged meta", the developers seem to think everyone should be happy just plinking away with Strikes or their bespoke rotations then popping back into cover, because that's the gameplay they offer us. You'd think cover would play a bigger role, but operative and soldier just get to ignore it, so there's not much incentive to move around, leading to even more boring turret play. So for that I think SF2e is bad. It can maybe get alleviated by a good bestiary (just offering a good mix of zone of control could do wonders), but the core issue would remain.