The problem with your reasoning is that you're essentially saying that one form of aesthetic is better than the other. Again, it does a disservice to both aesthetic styles when you do things like that. I'm not saying that you have to play Witcher 2 or anything (I haven't played it yet myself, lacking a computer that can run it), but to use comparisons like that is absurd.
If I say, "I refuse to play Tales games. Stupid animu graphics. Why can't they put in more realistic ones? Keep that anime shit to dating sims, that's all nerds play anyway." it'd be as bad as if I say, "Fuck Mass Effect, who wants ultrarealism and gay bald space marines? They should make it more anime-like. Stupid fratboy games." It ignores the tone and setting of the existing narrative entirely, and ends up demeaning both styles of aesthetics, because they're not interchangeable.
Comparing realistic games to real life and anime games to anime also ends in a similarly absurd conclusion. There's no real meaningful way you can interact with certain in-game objects, but that's not why they are there. Sure you can go touch and smell the tree, but why would you want to? Sure you could watch an anime with trees in the background instead of playing an anime game, but again, what's the point? That's not the goal of the game.