Refuting the Argument: "Battlefield has never Realistic"

The realistic argument is pretty redundant at this point, it's the same argument used to excuse Battlefield V. Yes, Battlefield's gameplay isn't 100% accurate, but people intentionally conflate 2 major aspects of gaming, world-building, and gameplay. Gameplay doesn't have to be accurate to real life, never has been (to a great extent), and no game will ever be, but world-building and authenticity have been.

In Battlefield 4, it felt like you were in an actual conflict that could happen in the real world. Battlefield games like 1,2, 3, 4 are the closest to Non-Fiction, while games like Battlefield V and Battlefield 2042 are more Fantasy because of all the goofy cosmetics and unrealistic aspects of the world-building that is 100% trying to mimic the real world, but done poorly, whether for monetary or political reasons.

Goofy cosmetics ruin the immersion, and so do having women in the Japanese army like in Battlefield V. Battlefield community wants the Non-Fiction (Realistic-Fiction) approach that Battlefield has always had while being a fun well-made sandbox FPS shooter. It's clear the Battlefield community doesn't want another barley functioning Fantasy entry like Battlefield V and Battlefield 2042, and I stand by that. We all want Battlefield 4 and Battlefield 3 again, and making a game more Fantasy than Non-Fiction (Realistic-Fiction) is exactly the opposite of Battlefield 4 and Battlefield 3. We also want a functioning game aswell, that is obvious, but we also want immersion. When I played Battlefield 4, in Operation Locker, it felt like you were storming a Prison, when you played Siege of Shanghai, it felt like an actual Urban City Battle.