Ugh god, I was just going through some various forums for different games and I started to flip. Because I am getting pretty sick of the people who say a video game is horrible...because it isn't "realistic". . . .
As the title suggests, how f*cking realistic does a game need to be to fit you're definition of "realistic" ??? Honestly like??..
People who insult Battlefield and give the idle reason of it being "not realistic". (usually giving excuses like the snipers suck or you can't prone or lean or whatever) Okay, do you want the developers to fly you to the Middle-East, stick a heads up display around you're goggles and tell you to go capture some flags?? Is that realistic enough for you??? Hey, you get to do all the crawling and leaning you want at least!
Then there's the Forza vs. Gran Turismo crowd who say one is better than the other because the bad one isn't realistic enough. Go out and drive your car along the M9 then if it isn't realistic enough for you.
I can tolerate one who plays a game, then says it's not very realistic, but plays it anyway because he enjoys the game for what it is. But I can't grasp why some people actually refuse to even look at a game let alone play or buy it because it's "not realistic enough". Last time I checked, these were Video Games. They aren't real events happening within the game. I don't think any game is supposed to be realistic.
Rant over, i feel better now