Zoo, I don't think it's just the gameplay regarding the FH 2 vs PR debate. It has more to do with the attitude of the players, the Devs and the server admins. PR decided, right from the start, that they are going to base the game on
teamwork. No other options, they decided they'll either succeed or fail horribly. They did manage to succeed in the end, as they offered something different, and they literally carved out the community to fit their desired vision.
FH2 on the other hand, is a mixed breed. It tries to appeal to anyone: The casual vBF2er trying to find something new, the hardcore competitive crowd, with the focus on shooting skills, the WWII history addict who only wants to relive a day of combat in WWII with all the beautifully crafted models and maps, and to some degree, to the teamworkers who still remember it's a
team-based game, and it should be played as a team.
But the problem is, with trying to please everyone, it alienated everyone, cause there's always gonna be "some quirk that simply doesn't fit my playstyle". Some want the gameplay to be faster, some want it to be slower and more tactical, some want no kit limits and freedom of choice, some like only smaller maps, some can't stand infantry-only etc.
FH2 needs to decide on its target audience, and stick with it. Cause as we saw, major shifts in gameplay (2.45 tanking system, anyone?
) will cause people to leave... And the question is only which people can we afford to lose?