I was wondering guys.

Everytime we argue about console graphics (or graphics in general) we tend to draw the line into how much photorealist can a game get. Discussions about, for example, Killzone:Shadow Fall and Ryse are set because people want the game that's closer to realism. Yeah, that's nice.

What's the point of achieving photorealism? We can tell Ryse and Killzone are videogames since they haven't achieved photorealism. They just try hard to get to it.

Let's see a different example. Let's look at this Crysis 3 shot:

Great work by Crytek, huh? It looks almost human. Awesome job. You still can tell it is a videogame, though.

Now let's just point a game that has achieved photorealism:

You like that? OF COURSE YOU DON'T! THOSE ARE HUMANS! THAT'S JUST TRASH.

Yeah, I know, I know that's live action. But still, that's how a game would look if it was photorealism. So let me ask it again, what's the point of it?

What's the point of making photorealist graphics that can only be matched by real live-action, since the graphics are realistic?

Photo-realistic games and at most average gameplay get people going around here.
Oh, and some serious and mature storyline copied from movies.

Because we think it can immerse ourselves in a game.

Live-action games gives you a sense of inmersion?

Does Mortal Kombat in the 90s count? lol

To be honest I don't care for it outside of Gran Turismo. I've seen games with an unrealistic appearance but they look phenomenal. The most recent Bioshock comes to mind (well it looks good. Describing it beyond that might be a stretch).

Because going outside is just not an option.

Cause we want to be marvel on how graphic evolve faster ? Beside not every game gonna achieve that type of graphic fidelity.

You keep forgetting that there is more to a game than just it's textures. For a very long time I've always wanted better physics that interacts with graphics. Do you realize how hard it is to get a realisitc water and fire behaviour ? We just had destructible geometry recently given to us! (Games like battlefield 4 is defining what it means to be a destrutible environment.) 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVZDH15TRro

If we could go past above rasterisation, optics in the game would be very useful to us because their realistic reflection and refractions could give us a clue about the enemies location. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCp8CdAB8fc

Don't even get me started on the dynamic shaders in the snow drop engine. The way the objects react to the whether gives us alot of atmosphere.

You can still use realistic physics and interactions in a non-photorealistic environment.

True but I'm pretty sure no one would enjoy looking at N64 textures.