mindblast: I personally don't understand the point on going into "realistic graphics" this much.
It's because this is what the market wants, even back in the 90's. Read any mainsteam review (or half decent user review) and you'll find graphics is usually the first thing they mention. I used to read PC Gamer magazine in the late 90's and I really got sick of them masturbating over graphics, number of decals, lighting, shading, whatever.
At that time, I also remember playing "Blackthorne" (a 2d Prince of Persia style game). Blackthorne is a solid game but one time a friend came over and just looked at the game for a fraction of a second for the first time and guess what he said? If you guess something along the lines of "This game sucks cos the graphics suck and it's 2D, give yourself a +1"
I also remember playing HOMM3 for the first time and a friend asked me about it. He hadn't played it yet and the first thing he asked me in his exact words were "How wicked are the graphics?"
Another friend who was taking part in the console wars of that time was trying to sell me on getting a PS1 just wouldn't shut up about how much better the graphics on his racing games were better than those on the N64
mindblast: It's a game, it shouldn't be realistic, it should allow your imagination to fill the blanks, it should be a pleasure to play, not a hassle in getting over the "modern graphics".
I totally agree with this statement, but the majority of mainstream gamers don't so guess who we have to thank for pretty but short games with abysmal gameplay.