Total anecdote and all, but I just did an informal "trying the rules out" mini-game for the first time tonight. I played a 3 strength covert ops elfy ninja thing wielding a humble combat knife. I wanted to play a decidedly non-big melee type to get a feel for what you can do if you're NOT a big bad troll.
Without some prior personal hands on play experience, I hadn't grokked how important judicious edge use really is. The DVs were almost besides the point in our combats. Yes, we played full-blown shadowrunners taking on low-threat halloweener scrubs, but my pixie had little difficulty eliminating NPCs with one DV 3P attack each. Went three for three on one-shot-one-kills. It absolutely can be less about the raw DV value than how your spend your Edge (and how often you can generate it to fuel more of those expenditures).
I'm glad you enjoyed it. If you go again and fight something higher threat then some Halloweeners I'd be interested to hear more about that. Just to be clear you said Pixie. Were you referring to your elf as a Pixie or did you play a pixie? Beyond that I'm more interested to hear what you thinking on Adzling argument. What are your thoughts on It's Good Enough for RPG Purposes? I'd also be interested Fox's and Bladz thoughts on it.
My thoughts on the phrase "Good Enough For _____". Problem is there's two different ways to take this phrase. One is that the person/group/corp puts out something that barely passes muster, leaving it to their fanbase to either just suck it, or because they know the fans will mod it till they fix the problems so don't bother doing it themselves. This seems to result largely due to a company either having a loyal fan-base who will still buy their stuff even with problems, or they have a monopoly and people don't have much if any choice. I don't know Catalyst as a company, and while I could easily picture someone higher up who only cares about sales numbers making such a call, the actual people who put in the work building this upcoming edition I can't see having played that way and would find such a claim insulting.
The other way addresses the issue of scope creep by declaring that a particular point is "good enough" or the project risks getting deeper and deeper into ever expanding detail and either falls behind schedule and risks floundering, or becomes mystifyingly complex making it hard for a chunk of your intended player base to understand. For an example, most RPG systems have three stats representing the physical body, strength for raw power, agility/dexterity for speed, flexibility, and coordination, and body/constitution for stamina and endurance. They will call that 'Good Enough', and in all honesty, it is. It still doesn't address the various nuances and balances in each of those stats, but such starts getting into far to much detail that your average player will probably neither care about, nor really need to use over the more simplified trio. A much harder target to hit and you will never please all the people who are wanting to play your game, though I'm thinking 6th world may have gotten it pretty well on target. We'll be able to tell better with the full rules in front of us and a few games under our belt to see how it plays beyond the paper.
TL/DR: The phrase good enough for can be used in both positive and negative ways, but I feel 6th is more on the positive side. I do however reserve the right to change my mind after I've gotten experience with it.
Also, yes I find the difference between melee weapon damage being fixed and unarmed being str/2 (personally I feel it should have been body since the weapon you're attacking with is your own slab of meat). However without knowing anything beyond that fragment of information I'm not willing to call it broken or the system a lost cause. Snap judgment declarations without the full facts are never a good thing.