After some MR2 discussions in chat, I was a little upset to discover that to a lot of people, playing MR2 is nothing more than breaking down numbers. The tournaments have made this even worse (and understandably so, when everyone is 999 across the board, and the only advantage is moves and guts regen).

Lisa Shock said it best: There are no bad monsters. So to that end, I want to finish up some ratings for those monsters who have none. Hare is coming first. Then Gali (I'd do gali first, but I'll have to find my MR1 slate).

Any requests? Comments? Complaints? Kudos? Comments on my total lack of sanity?

I don't consider playing MR2 breaking down numbers.. And even if everyone is 999 across the board, I'd still try to reach them, and not just get totally into the stats idea. I mean, it is about raising monsters. And they are all good. Even Katos. (I wanted to throw my PS2 across the room halfway through training it... I hate those POW starting techs...!)
Most people I've talked to think that Zuums (the monster I like best) are a great starting monster, but only good for helping you move up to raising something stronger. Well, Zuums are just as strong! I think it's a great idea to finish rating all the monsters. People can see that their favorite monster has its good points too.

Isn't rating them just placing them on a better/worse scale? When we spoke in chat I was under the impression that you going to write about them, not rate them.

At any rate, it does all boil down to statgain numbers, lifespan, guts regen, life patterns, likes/dislikes, etc. And we certainly dont need to repost that information. (Most of the monster FAQs at m-r.com are simply a list of all the data by main breed and an explanation of what to do based on that. We decided long ago not to copy that format. It wastes space by reposting FAQ info, and assumes the reader isn't able to find it for themselves.)

Go to the MR2 Misc Q&A thread on why we don't have a Gali section and read the link the n00bs are ooh-ing and ah-ing over. It's a simple re-hash of the list of subs, statgain patterns, life pattern, lifespan and the tech chart. Except, that it's simplified and makes generalizations out of the hard facts, meaning it's actually less useful than the numbers them selves. It's clear that the people posting here in that thread simply haven't bothered to read the FAQ data, and are looking for someone to spoonfeed it to them. (And they don't mind getting watered down pap instead of genuinely useful, specific information.)

Still, if you can find things to say that aren't watered down generalisations of the numbers, and don't repeat the FAQ/tech chart data, I guess you'd have something there, although what that would be besides their appearances, is beyond me.