Well most of the time, especially for big money franchises like MOH, for companies it comes down to what they can put together to get the most bang for the buck. Would adding "sticky bombs" rather than genades to take down tanks have sold any more game copies than it did? Hardly. Accuracy is cared about in this series to a point. Accuracy goes as far as what moves the game along. Most of the MOH series is based somewhat on true events / true people / or things a true soldier of the time could or could not do.
That is NOT to say that the whole entire game is one work of non-fiction...of course not. No game has 100% accuracy. Because it's a game. I mean why not take it further and do away with the radar and life bars. Soldiers of that era (hmmm...of this era) didn't have personal radar systems to tell them if a person standing around a corner is a friendly or a Nazi. In actual life, 9 times out of 10, one squeeze of the trigger means one kill. But as it is a game, you need certain items to help along the gameplay.
This takes into account the level design as well. EA's levels are generally bigger. A more open freedom kind of feeling that you can go literally anywhere & make different choices as far as the path you take when you progress.
On a different note, rather than complaining about some small part of accuracy in the game that your every day gamer (where your money is made) wouldn't notice or care about...be thankful that the developers care at all. They could have simply packed it in after Pacific Assault failed miserably. It's not every company that would admit freely that a game failed and return back to what made their name while continuing new ideas to progress with the next gen systems. Electronic Arts did.
If you want to complain about something, start here: 1) There is no online play. 2) Graphics are dated. 3) Very short campaign mode.
reply
share