Dude, it's pre-alpha. That stuff either isn't in the game yet, or is so broken you can't show it. Most Kickstarters, by the way, only have screenshots, "Concept Art" and a talking head. Most projects don't show nearly as much as BFS has, in game, real time.
Games today cost $60, you can get a copy of GB for $15. I spend that for two days of lunch. Takedown didn't take all the money, they got it from different sources (ie. Socom community and Notch followers) and had more media exposure, both good and some bad.
When was GB ever going to be free? They NEVER, EVER, EVER said it was going to be a free to play game. It has always been a game you would have to buy.
You'll give money to a project that had nothing but words, but one that "just" shows a training level isn't enough. What? Logic disconnect... I didn't pledge for Takedown simply because all he had were words. No engine, no name, no concept images, just words. Haven't we had enough people shoving words in our faces all these years? GB has in game, pre-alpha footage of solid working features, the core of the game. More maps and other content mean jack if those aren't right. What do you expect to see from Takedown when they finally, if ever, reach the same state as GB? You're not going to see a bunch maps all done at pre-alpha. That's not how the process works. Speaking of maps though, John Sonedecker created some some of the best R6 maps ever, and lead the art team for GR. You want good maps, he is THE man for the job.
Personally I'd feel more risk of $200k for "startup costs" walking away than $425k that is directly funding development and release, but hey that's just me.