I find that CK's current status is 'good', but I expect it if Paradox bothers to fix the AI and UI issues to become 'great'. Also, I do find CK should be somewhat more balanced among human players in MP if they choose approximately the same starting conditions. The fact that any MP in 1.03b without house rules will be a rush for Jerusalem does not mean that players can't compete at approximately equal odds (they each possess about the same capabilities to get to Jerusalem). This is very different from EU2 with its historical events, leaders & monarchs and explorers (not to mention terra incognita).
I do agree that after a couple of games CK will have a more generic feel to it than EU2 though, but that should only allow for better MP competition since power will mostly be based upon skill for the first time. The 'mostly' here comes from the random events that are a major part of CK. However, unlike in EU2 most random events in CK feel plausable or justified (even predictable). In EU2 it's more like "fucking hell, I got a political crisis worth -4 stability" for no apparent reason. Even if I during SP in CK have my main and favourite character die at the age of 20 I can accept it, and there usually are warning signs leading up to it like illness or related disease traits.
Oh: I'm not trying to say that you aren't allowed to think that CK is boring.
I rather try to present my own optimism for what Crusader Kings already is and may become.
