Well, isn't that what he meant? Making it more fun?
No, that's a horribly stilted view of it.
Let's get something straight, realism and "fun" are not mutually exclusive things, by no means.
Realism and "arcade" are usually used as opposites, but both can be "fun" for different reasons, and infact, games thease days are usually incorporating more realism to add to their fun-factor (for instance, in most racing games thease days, you can damage your car, whereas that was rarer in the olden days of racing titles, and most shooters today have some kind of aiming mode and reloading, which again was allmost never used in the olden days, lots of titles, though they do not aim to be simulators, none the less end up incorporating elements of realism because it's more fun that way).
And in this example, RO2 movement versus ARMA2 movement, i call BS on calling RO2 the less realistic one, because quite frankly, i would define it as both more realistic and more fun at the same time, whereas ARMA's clunkyness is neither realistic nor fun, it's just poorly designed and poorly exicuted.
Don't get me wrong, it has many cool and realistic features, but the fact that most of them feel clunky and awkward to exicute and deal with is neither realistic nor fun, real living human beeings do not find it awkward and clunky to exicute basic human movement, we do it naturally and fluidly, without even thinking about it, this stuff should be easy to do, not clunky and awkward!
RO2 is on the right track here, both in terms of realism and fun, "realism" is not about pressing lots of buttons, it's about mimicking real life posibillities and limitations in a belivable and intuitive way, things that should be easy to do should be easy to do, things that should be hard to do should be hard to do, etc etc, and most importantly, things should just plain behave as you expect them to.
Realism is NOT making everything hard to do, just for the sake of making it hard, that's "fake difficulty", not "realism".