What a lot of people don't seem to grasp about what makes realism appealing in games is that for the people who enjoy them, it's a much more involving experience. I seen a lot of comments going something like 'if I wanted realism I wouldn't be playing games' but it's not like I'm interested in playing a game about the mundane realities of everyday life like they suggest I'd want to do, I want to escape into a world of the brutal realities of war, without the risk of really dying of course because that's just ridiculous (but maybe a hefty in-game penalty if I do).
In my case I think of it as the 'burden of knowledge'. I'm not using this as some intellectual elitist term, it simply means if you know the realities of something you notice when things are wrong. For example; for someone like me who's interested in history, when a game (or movie) ignores the history it can have a very experience-breaking effect on it for me.
The most involving and immersive game I've ever played is Red Orchestra and while it is well known for it's realism I've seen and contributed to countless discussions on what should be changed, put in or taken out to add to accuracy and realism in the game. Just in those discussions alone you find there really is too many people wanting realism to be able to say it's not enjoyable to anyone.
But that brings me onto my next point, I also believe realism should be left to the games that focus on it as a big part of their experience. Adding realism to games that aren't really trying to be realistic is pointless and stupid... and it's not like I don't enjoy un-realistic games, it's just a put off when a game that's supposed to focus on realism doesn't live up to that claim.
To sum up:
Realism - What I love.
Pseudo-realism - What I and everyone here is really against.
Un-realism - What I love.
