Style vs Realism

So The Sims 3 has been announced and the first thing I felt as I looked at the screenshots was a growing sense of unease. I thought about it for a bit and the best reason for that which I can come up with is that the game is too clean. Something about the massive amount of polygons and lack of fuzzy borders keeps on reminding me I'm looking at a game that's attempting to simulate real life.

It was sort of inevitable that this would happen since a jump as dramatic as the one from 4-point isometric to full 3-D that happened between the first two won't happen again, but while I found the graphics of the Sims 2 to capture a greater scope of reality while maintaining the flair and exaggeration of the original, the third one doesn't seem to have the "Sims feel".

Naturally it's still to ealy to make a final call seeing as I haven't seen the game in motion and the graphics are still subject to change. But games like Psyconauts and Okami have antiquated graphics that still hold up today, even though neighter of them try for "realism". Are we doing games a disservice by pushing them to be "graphicly accurate"? What are your thoughts?

 

It really depends on the atmosphere of the game. However, having said that, if the gameplay matches or succeeds either prequel, as far as the sims go, it shouldn't matter how real or clean it looks. Graphics seem to take a greater and greater role in today's games. Because of this, many gaming developers decide that if their game looks great, their story doesn't really matter.
If you played Final Fantasy 8, you know exactly what I mean. it looked stellar for a game on the playstation. But the story sucked. Really fucking hard. You remember the first time you saw a Guardian Force summon? It looked great. I bet you didn't mind it the next three or four times you used it. After the tenth time summoning Ifrit or Eden, I'm pretty sure it pissed you off. And there were special abilities to EXTEND the length of the summon animation!
As far as I'm concerned, I like when a game's look matches its feel. Or when a game's look is completely dystopic to its feel. In the case of the sims, if the game plays like an exaggerated, highly stylized version of human relationships and emotional development, I expect it to look that way. It should be slightly cartoony with a dash of realism. However, it could also be portrayed in a world that's perfectly realistic, apart from how all of the characters act towards each other, or towards important/life changing events. I know it wouldn't quite be the same as any other play experience, but if everything still responds in the same way, or in a way that's a bit better than before, it's ok in my book.
A lot of times, I'll admit to actually picking up a game because I saw how everything looked on the cover. I'll literally think, "This looks pretty sweet."
I have no care as to whether or not the game actually plays, "sweetly," or what the game's actually about. I will pick up a game just because of how cool it looks to be. Is that a recipe for disappointment? A lot of times, hell yes. About ten years ago, a game called Quest 64 came out on the N64 (big shocker there). It looked pretty good, and it was touted as the first big RPG on the system. It sucked balls! The battle system, while innovative was boring as hell. All you did in a fight was run around in circles trying to not be hit by a monster's magic, and then you had to move in close and either whack them with your stick (and it's all you ever got) or hit them with your magic! And, the monsters hardly ever moved themselves. Also, travel was like shaving with barbed wire; You're bound to miss something, but you're too busy bleeding to check anywhere else.
One other major facet of a game's enjoyability would have to be the dialogue. You had mentioned Psychonauts, and one reason I love that game is because Charlie Adler plays several of the main voices in the game! He's a very talented man, and really adds a depth to the characters he plays.
Now, while spoken words and pretty pictures will definitely add to the wow factor of a game, I really want it to be a game. If a series of games starts with revolutionary gameplay, I expect a tad of the original to keep showing up in the sequels, with improvements to keep the whole premise fresh. Take all of the side-scrolling Megaman games as an example. The first six games had just about the same story, and they all used the same sprites for Megaman. However, you could get new gadgets and upgrades with each sequel, along with secret areas in stages, sometimes with alternate bosses. And, as familiar as I grew with seeing a new Megaman pop up just about every year, I knew I'd enjoy it. It has solid gameplay, and a decent learning curve. The curve is steep enough to keep you interested, but not steep enough to make the game impossible. And, as nerdy as it sounds, when you've figured everything out on your own...you feel proud.
The same can be said for the X series, though that was about three times harder, and much more dark than any Megaman before it.
What I really want in a game, despite what initially draws me to it, is that rush a person gets from playing a fantastic game. Almost like a bit of a high. If I can't get that within the first hour of playing, I put down the game and I'm done with it.
If I don't get that with the new Sims...I'll be really pissed off at Maxis.

 

If the game play is on par with Sims 2, I'll buy it. Hell, I still play Sims2. I still enjoy it a bunch. However, I'm hoping that they won't put out the 3 dozen expansion packs that they did with S2. Hopefully they make it more integrated...