On the realism topic: Frankly, I'm sick to death of realism. Ever since this generation began I've had more than enough bleak, gray/brown shooters. Even when they get colorful, like a Crysis or a Far Cry 2, it's still just too much for me. Every so often I'll get into a game like that (Bioshock is an example, but it did have its retro-futuristic 50s vibe that I am way into). I prefer Saints Row 2 to GTA IV, Fable 2 to Fallout 3. I get lost in Viva Piñata and Pokémon. I play Guitar Hero and Rock Band so I can be a rock star. And I like Gears of War not because of the great action or "gripping, emotional storyline", I like it because I love the big, dumb linebackers who run around shooting shit. I want games to have worlds I actually want to visit, not ones that depress me. I want them to focus on being fun. Everything else is just window dressing.
And, to tie this into the meta-argument that's built up around this article: that's kind of what I want out of game journalism, too. N'Gai can keep writing his deep artistic critiques. He's good at it, and I'd rather it be him than somebody who can't back up the "pretentiousness" by being actually intelligent and a great writer like he can. But I really don't want to read it. I want to be entertained. And, frankly, I consider myself a pretty smart guy, but I don't know what the fuck "versimilitude" means. There's a middle ground between the lowest common denominator of Top 5 lists and sticking boobs where they don't belong, and the high-concept (probably not the right phrase to use here, but you get what I mean) debates on games as art and whether some game's racist or not. Basically, I want to be entertained without being condescended to, I don't want it to get too serious, and an occasional boob is fine with me.
In summary: I want my games to focus on being fun. I also want my games journalism to focus on being fun. Some games can try to be more (and some journalists can try to be more), but I don't really see the need. The fun is enough for me.