@ImBack558855 he is not bringing up COD or any other fps shooter games because medal of honor has been marketing themselves as a game that is authentic, alot of the other fps shooter never claimed such a thing so thats why he is hitting danger close. i think tom has two main concerns regarding medal of honor's use of the term authenticity.

1st: he feels that the combat aspect of the game isnt realistic enough because you can regenerate health.

2nd: he feels war games like MOH that aims to be authentic should be ugly, grim and basically capture the atmosphere of saving private ryan and SHOULD NOT BE FUN. This argument sounds really ambiguous because if saving private ryan communicates sacrifice to bring home the only child in a family, isnt MOH also communicating sacrifice by being away from your family, doing the hard tasks that no one else can do? I honestly dont know how he gave an example for his contention of "should not be fun" as ARMA. So its really unclear on that.

i have to agree on greg here that this interview is solely based on semantics in that, tom cant seem to understand greg's version of authenticity in which greg aims to be authentic in certain areas ONLY and then TRIES HIS BEST to be AS AUTHENTIC as possible in the combat section which obviously implies that there are alot of limitations that needs to be considered when making a game of their genre and certain things need to be bent in the interest of making a game. Tom clearly for some reason fails to see this limitation and fails to understand that they are focused on storyline and the characters when it comes to authenticity and that there is nothing wrong with focusing strictly on a few certain aspects rather than covering the WHOLE SHEBANG. Its exactly like how one would compose an essay/article or even produce a film, it ALL needs to have A FOCUS and MOH's focus is clearly making a video game based on true characters and true scenarios.

Im sure alot of us can understand Tom's concern that video game trivialises war and death in that its ok to make mistakes because you get to try again, but he surprised me by adopting ARMA and Red Orchestra as prime examples that having one of your team mate die, would result in clear consequences. Now that is honestly quite silly of him because both are at the end of the day still GAMES and you can easily hit the restart button whenever you feel like it, or respawn in RO when you're dead. The minute i heard him say this, the entire argument between them became pointless immediately because its evident that its based on semantics and rhetorics.

On the issue of "war games should not be fun" i think what he meant was that war games should always communicate the psychological and physiological effects of war constantly because its impossible that a game be not-fun at all coz who would simply be willing to pay for that?! Again this clashes with his ARMA and RO example because both are fun as hell and both lack any story-telling regarding the psychological and physiological effects of war. I dont know if its possible to implement action like COD with grim story-telling like brothers in arms. I've always been told that you do what you do best and avoid doing the things you are not the best in until you're ready to.

I really dont hate Tom for asking this, just like in politics, someone has to ask the hard questions if you want the country to grow and just like in video games, this is how the industry will grow. Maybe one day video games will be a more matured medium of communication than film and books is.

"duck_watson i own an xbox 360 and it poops on all these cards" well duck_watson you are one stupid ding bat...xbox 360 and ps3 are graphically outdated already...both console's GPU are based on the ATI X1000 series and the ps3 is base on the GeForce 7000 series....