For those unable to decipher perplexing acronyms, the game in question would be Medal of Honor: Airborne, EA's next and next-gen entry in the extremely popular kill the nazis genre. By ways of CNN's Game Over column, analyst P.J. McNealy has asserted that 2007's Medal of Honor would be the first game to benefit from EA's adoption of Unreal Engine 3, with an unannounced title, Dead Space, to follow after. The latter game is likely not based on the office block that developed Rise of the Imperfects.
The rest of the column ponders the fate of RenderWare, the widely used middleware engine that EA obtained along with their purchase of Criterion just over two years ago. Apart from the obvious benefit of having Burnout in the stable, EA initially stated that they intended to use an updated version of the engine for next-gen products, none of which have so far managed to materialize (Burnout Revenge for the Xbox 360 was mostly a port, after all). While it's conceivable that RenderWare has since been surpassed by Epic's technology, Mark Rein gives a far more reasonable explanation (yes, really) in an interview with FiringSquad.
He suggests that "it comes down to smart resource management" and that EA is merely picking the best engine for the job. Unreal Engine 3 would presumably save them time and money for specific games and could be used in conjunction with their in-house tools. Apparently, you can never have too many engines at your disposal. Perhaps a good question to ask would be: how important is the graphics engine to you? Are you more likely to play a game knowing that it uses Source or Unreal, or is the visual end result the only thing that matters (besides that gameplay thing)?
Read - EA's Engine Acquisition examined
Read - Mark Rein on EA's adoption of Unreal