Found myself back with plants vs zombie 1

@dabjhn, I've had the same experience with GW2 so far - and have been resisting the urge to go back and play GW1. As @EA_Andy states, there's an adjustment period that we all need to work through. He's right, and it's a pain. But, I know that I'll get used to it and enjoy GW2 once I have some more hours under my belt. Given the immense amount of fun I've had playing GW1 over the past year, I see this as a worthwhile investment.

That said, the more I play GW2, the less confident I am that it's ultimately going to be as good as GW1. At least not for me (though I'm also probably not EA's target demographic). I recognize that the game isn't even two weeks old yet, and that there are plenty of updates to come. I've read (parts of) the Rose thread, and the consolidated list of beta suggestions, and understand that the game will be refined over time. My concern is that the fundamental changes that differentiate GW2 from GW1 seem to be a step in the wrong direction (again, at least for me).

I'll spare everyone from having to read my personal list of pet peeves, and summarize by saying that I find GW2 unnecessarily complicated. A few examples:

• There's 14 characters. It sounds like most folks enjoy the extra diversity, but I find it a chore. It took me a long time to gain an intuitive understanding of the subtleties of the original 8 characters - not to mention their myriad variants, which I'm still learning. I'm not saying that the new characters are bad,  just that 14 is too many.
• The saturated colors and copious special effects make it difficult to see what's going on. During the beta, I chalked this up to my being unfamiliar with the new maps and graphics. Unfortunately, more play time hasn't mitigated the issue. It's like driving in the rain with no windshield wipers.
• The maps... I'm not sure yet. At a macro scale, I love the new maps. They're expansive, and clever, and I enjoy each one more the more that I play it. At the same time, they seem cluttered with extraneous obstacles. There's probably a tactical reason for this that more serious gamers will understand/appreciate, but it's too much for me.

Ultimately, GW2 multiplayer feels to me more like Halo 5 Warzone than like GW1. GW2 multiplayer is just mayhem - and not the good "let's all toss some chili bean bombs and have some fun" mayhem, but the "why did I just die, and how can I learn from this experience when I have no idea what's going on around me" mayhem.

IMHO, the relative simplicity of GW1 is part of its magic. People still play go, and backgammon, and mancala after centuries / millennia because their beguiling simplicity belies the depth of strategy and skill required to win. To me, GW1 struck that same balance, whereas GW2 obscures it with a veneer of superfluous "upgrades".

Knowing what I know at this point, given the choice between paying $60 for GW2 or paying the same $60 for a big new map pack for GW1, I'd pick the latter. In fairness to EA / PopCap, though, I suspect that most prospective customers would demand "more" for their money. They're in the same position as any consumer tech company, in that they need to continually change their product offering, lest we feel that they've stagnated and move on to a competitor. Sometimes that change represents progress, and sometimes just change for change's sake (think iPhone 5 > 6, Windows 7 > 8, etc.). Time will tell with GW2.