I mean this is all a bit like the argument for the more photo realistic something becomes in games the worse off we are for it.
Grass for instance...in most cases in the real world it looks like ass, if you bring that into a game the whole thing looks like ass.
Sure there is something like too much and then it goes entirely the other way, but general speaking you want to retain the "art" side of games otherwise it becomes pretty bland and boring.
I think back to how **** scary Alone in the Dark was when it came out...I think it might have been the first polygon-based game that existed, but definitely the first one I played.
Now I look at this...
And I ask myself how the hell were you scared of this? But you operated completely in a realm of fantasy and therefore filled in all the blanks for yourself. Sound also played a massive role...as this as 16-bit audio was back in those days.
Now make it photo realistic and the exact opposite happens where you see something and immediately go "but reality doesn't work like that" and you immediately disengage for it being unbelievable.
Similar to slasher horror movies and why I hate them is because the victim will breathing like a ****ing pool pump that caught air behind a dry wall full of holes and the antagonist with the chainsaw will be on the other side of said wall and magically can't hear them or find them. Immediately it becomes a comedy for me because it's so bad and ridiculously improbable.
Compare that to movies that do less and leave it up to your imagination to build the tension and those are far scarier. Case in point a piece of magic in cinematic execution is the curb stomp in American History X which never happens on screen...but you see it all in your mind.