Seriously, the_fur, I think you are overreacting. There will always be concessions to be made in INF. Why do we have ghost flying, end-game scores, messages saying which team won, even when one team was killed in its entirety? Why can we change weapons between rounds? Why can we select uniforms, wear sunglasses, choose headgear? Select weapons? How many armies let their regular troops select what firearms their troops use? Hell, many spec ops units won't even allow it. So is it realistic? Hell no. But why is it in the game then?
Because it would not be fun otherwise.
Who wants to wait in front of a mute black screen until the next map loads without knowing what team won? Nobody. So it wasn't done like that. The same goes for death messages. Knowing who killed you is fun because you can talk to the person about it. - You are dead anyway, so any kind of message, movement, action, display, sound, whatever is very, very unrealistic. Knowing who killed you does not make the game any *less* realistic than not knowing it, as long as nobody else still alive is informed. Again: You are dead. The fact that you can wait for the next round to start is already unrealistic, so whats wrong with knowing who killed you? I'm amazed this is such a problem.
Think about it. You lose absolutely *nothing* in realism if a dead person is informed on who killed him because the person is dead and for the purpose and considerations of realism *non-existent*. He's in never-never land, flying high above the battlefield complaining about lag and looking for good hiding places for the next round. So the hell what if he knows who killed him? He's gone, and nobody else still playing will ever know. Realism is not really even part of the argument here.
Nobody wants death messages for *everyone* in the game à la CS as in "X killed Y with a SIG". All we are asking for is that we - and we alone - be informed upon our death of the person that killed us so we can start cracking jokes. That conflicts in no way at all with realism.
