I loved Harpoon.
Again, though, I have to say that I thought FS2 succeeded perfectly in storytelling. The fact that the cockpit presents only a tiny slice of the war was perfect in making the player feel small, almost insignificant. And I thought the chaos -- 'cruisers and destroyers going up in flames' -- just implied that the war at large was furious. I also thought the command briefings were much better than FS2.
It's easy to become jaded and believe that the player has too much power in FS2 -- but when playing on Hard or Insane it's simply not true. Even a Fenris is dangerous.
So, yes, I just want to say that a lot of this analysis is obviously a matter of opinion.
Perhaps, but you were present at literally every major event in FS2. (This has a side-effect of making some missions, like Dunkerque or Into the Maelstrom, feel ever so slightly filler-like compared to the momentous events of The Sixth Wonder or High Noon.) One of the defining moments of FS1, the Siege of Vasuda Prime, was something that you didn't see at all.
Personally, I am of the opinion that FS2 had a vastly superior story going for it, but the way the story was told was considerably less well-handled than in FS1, with the end result that the two come out close to equal; maybe a slight edge to FS2 if I'm feeling charitable. Of course it's quite arguable that story and storytelling are inseperable characteristics, facets of the same whole. This is so far the only case I've seen where the execution and the ideas appear to be so disconnected.