The worst part about it is, I can see what Tom was trying to argue, but it's obvious he's the kind of guy who has to really contemplate every word of his articles when he's writing them, because when faced with the task of having to defend his editorial and argue his point, he completely falls apart. Throughout the entire 20+ minute interview, he never comes right out and says what his argument is, he just keeps referring back to the regenerating health issue. I feel like what he was trying to argue was the idea that the developer is, in his eyes, falsely advertising Medal of Honor as being an "authentic" war game based on real people's experiences when it includes unauthentic "gamey" mechanics such as regenerating health and respawns.
Greg tried to defend his point against Tom, but also had a hard time doing so, I feel, because I don't think he really understood exactly what Tom was trying to argue in the first place (because Tom argued it poorly). Tom repeatedly used the term "realism," which was easy for Greg to write off since it was not the exact word the studio was using, but instead "authentic." Greg was right in saying that it was a matter of semantics between them, but that was never the argument in the first place. To say that a game is "authentic," and to name off all the ways in which it is, but conveniently leave out the ideas of pain and death on the battlefield, is misleading. If they wanted to be true to their fans and the people they claim to "honor" by making these games, they would need to list off the ways in which the game is "authentic," since there are clearly aspects of the game, small as they might see them, that are absolutely without question not authentic. Obviously no marketing team is going to do that, so instead they just say that their game is "authentic" and not going for "realism," since that term is much easier to argue for.
Tom McShea had a valid point that could've lead to an interesting debate between himself and Greg but is bad at debate, it seems.