Morkus from Orkus
What I have been saying, and I think you know it, is that we look at real life for the connection and idea of how they work, not exactly how they would work real life. When I look at swords in real life having edges, that's not a subjective interpretation. When I look at swords having hilts in real life, that's not a subjective interpretations. When I look at them being primarily made out of metal in real life, that's not a subjective interpretation. When I look at them getting dinged up when used or the blade dulling, that's not a subjective interpretation. When I look at them breaking during use, more often when not maintained, that's not a subjective interpretation.But you proceeded all this by appealing to how these weapons would work in real life - your own subjective sense of what is "realistic" - and that assertion could be disputed by people who actually know better than you about the subject matter. You are just ignoring reality when it's inconvenient for your game while also appealing to your sense of reality about that same matter.
After I look at those things when I say that swords in D&D being primarily being made out of metal, and having edges and hilts is realism, that's not a subjective interpretation, either. If I were to then implement a system of weapon degradation and breakage, even if that system did not mirror real life AND if I didn't consult an expert on swords, that would also be a realism increase that is not based on subjective interpretation. Those are examples of realism that are based on facts, not subjectiveness.