I mean, here's the thing, I may not be some sort of published game designer, but I've written a LOT of games, actually. From the time I was 12 I wrote games, RPGs, wargames, table top games, etc. I've made some decent games that bunches of people played, usually with a few other people working on the better ones. I feel like I have SOME idea what the process and constraints are to building games and getting people to play them. I'm sure there's plenty I don't know about what goes on in Mike Mearls' office and career and WotC, nor could I do his job. Still, some of the stuff the guy says is just so utterly weird and doesn't ring true to me. Every decision he makes goes in a direction that seems to make me cringe. 5e seems completely antithetical to what feels right in evolving a version of D&D to me, and having played 1e and 2e for 20+ years I just can't even recognize 1e in what he's describing.
Now, if he'd said it about OD&D, I would have found it to be a much more credible statement in many respects. Not that the game is some wondergame by modern standards, but it did do certain things, and had certain qualities, that are not easy to produce in a game.
Not that realism is exactly a goal.
