You see I liked the zero to hero stuff until I played games with flatter power curves, where our characters began reasonably competent and ended as slightly more competent. I don't want to be a master swordsman who's never left the academy, I want to be an accomplished soldier who is good at fighting but also decent at a bunch of stuff (navigating on land, setting up camp, haggling for supplies, foraging, probably sailing if we're on a ship). I much prefer 2e erring on the side of genetically competent, it can go too far but at least you don't have to pick between hyper focused and uselessly broad
2e vastly expands the world, whereas the corebook is still just Theah there's sourcebooks fleshing out counterparts to Africa, the Americas, and Asia (with East Asia apparently being a different game with different themes?). There's even a version of the East India Company.
It's not for everyone, but at least the world is broader.
Shadowrun is on 6e now, which is somewhat divisive. I like it, the bloat in the skill list has been cut and a lot of situational bonuses have become 'give a point of Edge*', but those are also some of the reasons others dislike it.EDIT:
I like Shadowrun (though I stopped following it after 3rd Edition. What are they on now, 6th?) and Space: 1889 too, though come to think of it, I've never actually played Space: 1889.
(I was however admittedly quite lucky, only picking up the corebook after it was fixed. I hear the first two printings had some major issues.)
* basically Fate Points.