The ability to render more polygons creates more opportunity for different graphics, but you're right, it isn't better. The issue is that the "premium" style is realism. All AAA games now think they need to recreate reality. Style is what they should be aiming towards. We want something that looks cool, not necessarily real.

How many people say their favorite painting style is realism? Probably not very many. Why do we limit video games to that then? (I haven't played a AAA for a while now, partially because of this, and partially because their gameplay is all boring and generic.)

I remember thinking in the early 2000s that more polygons = better graphics

Well, back in the day, games were really held back by their lack of polygons, and a game with more polygons could look significantly better.

In these days, though, we have enough polygons to make things look fantastic, so now it comes down to artistic skill, effort, and taste.

Every few years I think "this is true photorealism; we can't go further". And every few years they introduce some new technology that upheaves everything and requires a new generation of graphic engines and tech to properly show off.

Though maybe it's just my eyesight getting worse, but I think the first Star Wars: Battlefront reboot was close enough to reality that they could have stopped there. That or the FOX Engine - the tech demos from before Konami killed it would show a real video side-by-side with a render and they were nearly indistinguishable. (Edit: might have been this one?)

Skin and facial animations are what's really holding us back. Forget yet another lighting revolution, focus on the basics!