You apparently don't understand the flip flop model EA was going for. The exact same model as Activision. The idea was to have a developer flip every year. BF, MOH, BF, MOH. That was the plan. It was to be a DIRECT competitor to Activsions IW:CoD, Treyarch:CoD model. They were to release at the SAME TIME to counter Activision and went after THE SAME demographic. MOH has a VERY arcade feel to it. Nothing was really "authentic". Apparently you bought into the hype on that one. EA doesn't want a successful shooter. It wanted a CoD killer and MoH fell short. Was it a good game? Not really by todays standard (BF3) but a lot of the ridicule it got was because it was a DIRECT COMPETITOR TO CoD and we all know CoD games are favored by reviewers. MoH didn't deserve a lot of the flak it got. MoH 2010 was in fact a damn good game.
Blame EA all you want. Fly that flag but they brought you BF3. End of story. I think if any blame is to be had it should be pointed at Danger Close.
Yes I do blame EA, you're really not taking valid customer complaints on the lackluster quality of the last two MoH titles, esp Warfighter, seriously. I've also read the talk of EA wanting something competitive against CoD, but I don't take that as meaning they wanted to MAKE another CoD type game. It's not like everyone that plays shooters follows ONE game formula, be it CoD, BF3, etc. Most shooter fanatics are crossover players. The two are quite different in their concept, just not enough in end design. The real problem is they picked the wrong type of title to release up against CoD, and they didn't execute it well in and of itself.
I also already pointed out that the latest MoHs are in fact not as authentic as they intended them to be, and furthermore, the somewhat suspect claims of getting former military advice seemed more of a hook than anything significant. There's too many little details that can be left hanging once military consultation is translated into game, even IF that consultation is legit.
I don't care how much anyone blabs on about CoD. The reality is, ANYONE that makes a military shooter has to deal with that series as competition. It doesn't mean they are seeking to use THAT particular formula or THAT particular fanbase, it's just that CoD fans are big part of the equation for ANY such game. Don't forget that BF3 itself has a huge following too. The story, gameplay, and even engine are more similar to the BF3 campaign than any CoD campaign.
It seems obvious to me you are only paying attention to critics vs actual player reviews. The critics don't tend to put things in the perspective of the player, and often times they exaggerate and even twist what the developers and publishers are trying to convey. The only thing that matters is the end result, and it was largely due to bad decisions on EA's part.
Anyways, it doesn't matter now, since it's been scrapped. It's certainly not as big a loss now considering how badly it evolved, but one things for sure, those whom bought and played it are entitled to their opinion on who's fault the scrapping was, you'll just have to accept that. How you can even point out key flaws in it then imply it was unfairly criticized is rather strange.
great game indeed, started all this PC gaming for me 
