@jonbrons well said

I think one of the major disconnects between greg and tom is that tom sees gameplay as a narrative tool equal to that of a cutscene or chatter . like button jamming quick time sequences that change gameplay to convey a high energy situation. This view leads tom to see the gameplay as telling a different story than the elements greg refers to as authentic.

Greg seems almost blindsided by this idea. And reasonably or at least unsurprisingly so. Most games treat death in a similar manner. This is a big project for a triple a studio. they're not going to get supper experimental with the gameplay like a low budget indie could. (the path for example)

In a way this game is better for its lofty goals of authenticity. It probably created a stronger narrative, and more believable characters/situations than it would of minus its "authenticity" and its delivering this story to what i assume will be a wider audience than arma ever could (let me reiterate thats an assumption, feel free to enlighten me)

The last issue i have with toms idea is that i dont think the people who buy this game will necessarily read into the gameplay as tom does. Im not sure if theyll read into it at all. Its an fps not catcher in the rye, its not even bioshock. Why does he feel that a sizable section of the population will have the same response. Im afraid that this idea is much more likely to be tossed around by game journalist and bloggers who get paid to look at games critically. Hes probably played a couple of those "artsy" indies and is more receptive to the narrative conveyed by gameplay vs a random player online.

Im not against what Toms trying to do, holding this developer to a high standard, and asking him to make gameplay congruous with the other narrative elements but again the experimentation it would take to properly convey death isnt going to happen in a triple a fps and im not convinced that toms interpretations will be shared by many of the people who will eventually play this.