(good) gameplay > realism
I just had to through my voice in there with all the people screaming for more realism.
I agree with that. But you must ask the question: what is good gameplay?
What does one seek? Chess is abstract gameplay which is pretty good. Not very immersive though. Why do almost all games emulate reality? They give us immersion, an experience, a chance to do what we want to do.
Myself and others like me seek to live out the urge to hunt a prey, do violence upon it and kill / destroy (yes yes, also the historical bit and the setting). Those with enough education & insight understand that this is in the nature of man, but must not be expressed in the real world. I also seek to satisfy my fascination for firearms, to be able to toy with them.
With my desires, good gameplay is extreme realism of the hunt of intense infantry combat in a setting such as World War II. Both body and weaponry. I do not seek chain of command, formalities, waiting around after being killed, mission planning and so forth, so that realism would not make good gameplay for me.
What do you seek? What makes good gameplay? I understand fully if you just say you prefer Call of Duty type shooters and don't have the desire or patience to deal with the real world limitations of the human body and firearms. That is just as justified as my own opinion. But if this is the case, I will urge you to consider that most shooters are already arcady like this and there is no game anywhere that offers body & firearm simulation without the clunkiness of ArmA 2. Please support that at least 'realism' mode could offer this. Can keep the relaxed realism like Call of Duty, too. We both win.