On photorealism in video games

I've been arguing with my friend about this for a few days now. He is amazed at how great 3d max renders can look and wants games to look this way, but I say that it's not the photorealism, it's the style that the game is presented in. Like what effects they use, how well are the levels structured, the frame rate ect.
I don't see the world being spectacular enough to replicate in video games. Sure, sky looks great on a good day, and the sunlight can really make a boring day look pretty but most of the time it's very static and plain. You can't turn on fancy filters or pump up the contrast, not everyday you can see the sky, you rarely see a lightning storm or even a heavy rain. Video games are pretty when they show you something over the top and of a great scale. I never found Crisis pretty because it ran like shit and looked plain (also I hate jungles).
And then there is a problem of interactivity. These days people expect the games not only look good but also some amount of interactivity. And the closer we are to photorealism the harder it is to make things interactive. The amount of work that would require is too big for most studios to do. And obviously you need powerful hardware to run all of this.
Sure the technology moves and with creation of new ways to render things like Unlimited Detail Technology we are getting closer to making natural looking graphics but I'm not sure if we have to demand them now or even in the next generation.

I've been arguing with my friend about this for a few days now. He is amazed at how great 3d max renders can look and wants games to look this way, but I say that it's not the photorealism, it's the style that the game is presented in. Like what effects they use, how well are the levels structured, the frame rate ect.
I don't see the world being spectacular enough to replicate in video games. Sure, sky looks great on a good day, and the sunlight can really make a boring day look pretty but most of the time it's very static and plain. You can't turn on fancy filters or pump up the contrast, not everyday you can see the sky, you rarely see a lightning storm or even a heavy rain. Video games are pretty when they show you something over the top and of a great scale. I never found Crisis pretty because it ran like shit and looked plain (also I hate jungles).
And then there is a problem of interactivity. These days people expect the games not only look good but also some amount of interactivity. And the closer we are to photorealism the harder it is to make things interactive. The amount of work that would require is too big for most studios to do. And obviously you need powerful hardware to run all of this.
Sure the technology moves and with creation of new ways to render things like Unlimited Detail Technology we are getting closer to making natural looking graphics but I'm not sure if we have to demand them now or even in the next generation.

PGR got pretty close 
 
 http://www.blogcdn.com/xbox.joystiq.com/media/2006/01/comparison2.jpg

I'd agree with style being more important, I'm far more blown away when i look at a game like say, Okami or Windwaker, than with something that looks 'photo realistic' .

In the future art design will become less and less important over technical graphics or realism. It's just we are using art design now, half way this gen, 75% last gen to compensate for a lack of technical graphics or power to render it. Crysis is the best attempt at realism. Same with modern warfare 2.