Currently Online 
| GTAexpert said: Its funny to see people keeping an open-mind in this thread but criticizing realistic graphics in other threads. |
I think more people are criticizing boring graphics. With realistic graohics it is usually harder to make environments less boring.
To answer the OP: it depends - on the game, on the execution of the artstyle and so on.
Also it is not always easy to decide which is what. Monster Hunter is for me a realistic artstyle, but some may argue that it is cartoony. Same with Xenoblade, I think it is realistic artstyle, but it already tends strongly into the cartoony direction.
A thing to note though:
1. It is a bit harder to create a realistic look, that stands the test of time. Or to put it differently: a game that looks great totday can look awful in 10 years, and that happens more often with realistic artstyle. As I'm an older gamer and have fun replaying games I played back then this is an important point. Quake doesn't aged well, Monkey Island on the other hand looks great even today.
2. Violent and dark games don't necessarily need to have a realistic artstyle. In my opinion works borderlands very well art-wise. On the other hand kid-friendly and light games can sport a realistic artstyle.
Important is always, that the artstyle is matching with the feeling the game should transport and it looks interesting and good (very subjective I know, but visuals usually are).
