I can no longer sit on the sidelines with this "realistic vs cartoony" RUBBISH any longer:
Uncanny valley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I am an 3D tutor/lecturer and spent time in the animation industry, so I am qualified to point out a few things.
Of particular note is the graph in that link above - showing the HUGE fall in brain's acceptance of something seeming real...
EA looks to use photo-stitching techniques, vs Konami hand painting textures with some reference images used to a lesser degree inside the textures.
To back up the un-canny valley (above link) explanation:
a) EA's photo stitching is too close to real that people either reject it or accept it, NO in-between
b) Konami's interpretation suspends the viewer's belief of it being too real, thus people generally accept it on some level
c) Subtle facial animation and posing (again going for realism) can go un-noticed in some scenes, and looks poor if displayed at a small resolution, worse in replay slowed down (i.e. background players having facial poses is often un-noticed). The other factor is that our brains tend to throw away the subtle information because it is seen so often in real-life human interaction.
d) Extreme, or over the top facial animation and posing is easily seen in small resolutions and is memorable, but again, because the viewer interacts with real-life human faces so often, the believability in it seeming real is lessened.
So balance is indeed the most important thing when appealing to a wide audience, IMO.