Funny, I remember someone saying basically just that in regards to criticisms of Arma 2...
Looking at the reviews, the opinion toward realism varies greatly, although RO2 is typically praised for its realism, rather than criticized. The main complaints are the bugs (Usually from the early reviews, with the bugs at launch), and "bad hit detection," which is to say, disliking the network method of the game that degrades the performance of shooting.
I also think that's why there is typically such a small and self-selected opinion on these forums. Most of the people who have problems with the networking model have moved on to other games, leaving only the smaller group who is content with that method on these forums. That small group, becoming so dominant on these forums, then gets a disproportionately loud voice to clamor in TWI's ear for changes that push the game further and further from what the broader range of realism-interested players want.
The disconnect between the popular opinions held on these forums and those held elsewhere on the internet is marked. There are enormous numbers of complaints about "hit detection." While some seem interested in Classic mode, most opinions off these forums apparently hold it below Realism, many even questioning why people would want to go backwards, and with many of the ones who like the sound of it still having reservations toward or straight-up disapproving of some of the changes (Also, relevant to recent topics, there are a good number of people who have asked for the features being put in Action mode, despite the claims that nobody has asked for it). And increasingly, particularly on
gaming forums, there is sentiment that one of the largest problems for RO2 is the offici al forums, and the minority of players who frequent them and who are, therefor, the loudest voice for change; that RO2 is likely to be another game with great potential ruined by "fixing" it for the community, the community that happens to be largely at-odds with the majority of interested players.