EA's admitted Danger Close and DICE's recently released Medal of Honor reboot "didn't meet our quality expectations".
 
....
 
  "What I can say is the game didn't meet our quality expectations. In order to be successful in that space, we're going to have to have a game that is really, really strong.

• BC2 lacks polish,
  
• Jesus in the center of the fucking court;
  
• MOH lacks quality....
• C&C4 - the game the developers didn't want to make(the way it was released) but management forced them to
  
•  59.99 can you fucking believe that... as if it grows on trees. GTFO.

ZOMGosh they like so didn't include the Karlov Bulk stock holder, and instead decided to kit you out with a MGG barrel scope, which is like so totally noob man. Who would do such a stupid thing. Did they even want this game to sell.

Game was slightly rushed and unpolished that is all that needs to be said.

Yeah, I came to this forum to post that. It's fucking ridiculous of EA to do this kind of shit. 
 
Does that mean when I buy Battlefield 3, that I might be getting a product that doesn't meet EA's quality expectations? Because if it doesn't meet theirs, no way in hell will it meet mine. 
 
What a mess EA is in...

"

"

You're angry cos a guy admitted he fucked up? Wow, what happens if they don't apologise?

It just shows that EA KNOWS that the product is not good enough, yet still releases paid DLC...

Oh I bet you money MOH was rushed, no doubt.  But it's his decision to decide if they failed or not.  Which they did

BC2 was fine, actually BC2 was great. I played at least 8x more BC2 than MW2. 
The rest of this is all valid and all, but the EA (exec?) crapping on BC2 from a height can get to heck.

 BC2 I really like it was great shame about the campaign but it certainly lacked a certain measure of quality for example the HUD on the helicopter didn't work but the Falcons in Halo Reach did. It also lacked a useful feature which 1943 had but I cant remember what it was I remember thinking how dumb it was they didn't add it in though I must go play it again. 
 
And Medal of Honor although I didn't play it, was obviously rushed out before COD to get sales which I think it did.    

" Medal of Honor is to some extent judged harsher than it should be", he then adds in the game's defence. "The game is better than today's reviews are indicating." 
Another publisher/developer saying the game is better than the reviews. I wouldn't be surprised if they release another statement saying Jeff played the game wrong

Wait...Bad Company 2 lacked polish? 
 
Me and that Joe whats-his-face must've played different games, because Bad Company 2 was fucking fantastic!

In MOH, your sniper guy starts off with a red-dot scope... wow. You have to EARN a legitimate scope.  If you go to Walmart you can get a hunting rifle that comes with a full scope. Who is doing research at DICE? 

" @SethPhotopoulos said:

"

"

"

By the way the game still sold like gangbusters so this is all moot.

I don't know bout you but Bad Company 2 is a great fucking game.  Idc bout the single player campaign in these games btw.

and it's not "rage". It's highlighting the bull shit. 
 
what facts? I played the "betas". Why would I highlight the 'other' rifle? I was specifically talking about the red-dot scope. You need to "work" to upgrade that scope.

" and it's not "rage". It's highlighting the bull shit.   what facts? I played the "betas". Why would I highlight the 'other' rifle? I was specifically talking about the red-dot scope. You need to "work" to upgrade that scope. "

" @SethPhotopoulos:  Are you serious? This discussion again? "

 They can name the versions anything they want: Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Pineapple, Orange... they make the software, they call it whatever they like. But is it what they say it is?
 
From the first 'beta', the models, animations and things of that nature, they were in fact final. How do I know? From the BC2 beta when some issue with a model was brought up and a developer said that it was 'too close to release' to change . There isn't enough time to change things. From the first MOH beta to the 2nd, right before release, the only things they were working on, I hypothesize, were numerical values and some logical statements; no models, and things like that. Basically text edits and maybe not so significant changes. 
 
I doubt they spent the whole time tweaking the main game(multi). There are other parts too. The update mechanism, the DLCs; the structural aspects of the product (server/client); all of these must work together, they must be tested, without flaws (or few and/or hidden if no other way). However MOH multi is a BC2 mod, so core things 'worked' from the start. But still...
 
 Look at the latest BC2 patch. It comes in at 900MB for what? content? models, vehicles, new maps, new weapons? what? the change list shows things that can be edited from within a text file.
 
If you then recall Kalms talking about how crappy the frostbite engine is, where he tells us the Frostbite recipe of how things must be 'baked' or 'cooked' or whatever he said (an analogy to not get all technical), you will see that making changes is pain and agony with the engine.  To troubleshoot and solve errors associated with the tweaks needed time. They didn't create, it seems, a clean system that can be modified easy. Unless of course they are lying as an excuse to not have to release tools and or updates.
 
Where is a PC user who bought MOH and played the "Betas" ??   Was the multiplayer of the final version the same as the "Open BETA" ? How does the final retail version compare with the "Closed BETA" ?
 
I bet they are all essentially the same. If they included a map in the Open Beta from the first Closed Beta, one would be able to identify what, if any, changes were made.
 
This is how people should analyze all software put up for sale, to determine quality of workmanship and to see if you are in fact getting what you pay for; something good, something of value.  I know there are people who are content with crap and they will post "OMFG this is awesome", but when they finally come to respect the money.... then we'll see.

" and it's not "rage". It's highlighting the bull shit.   what facts? I played the "betas". Why would I highlight the 'other' rifle? I was specifically talking about the red-dot scope. You need to "work" to upgrade that scope. "

BC2 was an awesome game, I played the heck out of it online and I'm playing a fair bit of MOH as well. So obviously my judgement of what makes a good game differs from EA. Or is EA judging games solely on numbers of sales ? EA isn't used to being number 2 in terms of sales and they clearly are pursuing the Modern Warfare market aggressively. They obviously feel that if their game doesn't match up to MW in terms of sales, it's a failure. I think otherwise....