In the end, though, there are reasons the bigger games DO NOT attempt photorealism. At best you have some games going for more of a hyper-realism streak. This is for a reason.
Firstly, the very fact that a game cannot have dynamic lighting decreases the realism by an astounding amount! Like, everything would look out of place and seem a bit like a poorly photoshopped image unless you took the time to photograph the model under perfect conditions for every environment needed in your game, which seems like a ridiculous amount of work. Without lighting, everything looks amazingly ugly.
Secondly, having more of a cartoonish style allows people to keep up the suspension of disbelief a bit more (eg; a guy that's got rediculous proportions seems more able to jump ten feet in the air and do 3 backflips than a perfectly realistic soldier), and also holds off the uncanny valley.
"Photorealistic" textures/models would be extremely prone to uncanny valley, I think. In an age where facial movements weren't needed or possible, they were alright, but now it'd just be... Mapping that to a model in a way where it could actually move would be kind of really difficult. That's still achievable (people do similar things), but for game purposes, how would you map the eyes correctly? The eyelashes? the teeth, the tongue? The list just keeps going on as such, and that's before I even TOUCH modeling in a way that's perfectly accurate to a human body.
Lastly, it's kind of... ugly. Why go for photorealism, when we have so many styles and influences to draw from that follow established design rules and bend more easily to the compositions we strive for? When we can create characters from the ground up, instead of scanning in actors to play them? What we should be going for is believability, not strictly realism.
Just my 2 cents I suppose.