Bryce has its own 'look' just as Vue, Max, Maya and Lightwave do. Some like it, some don't. It is an art package after all, not a camera substitute, and while I concede that Max renders (at least in the latest release) are realistic, I personally find them a bit boring. Anyone trying for a photorealistic render in Bryce is going to come up with a hundred complaints, but I can think of a hundred complaints about Max that I would't apply to Bryce. Most of those who buy and use Bryce presumably like, or even love, it for what it is, not just use it because they can't afford one of the high-end tools. I wouldn't call Bryce's output cartoonish - although cartoons are a pretty sophisticated art-form, and demand a lot of talent from the artist - I would call it distinctive and impressionistic. Bryce also gives a lot of scope for individuality in artwork; not only can you tell a Bryce render but you can immediately identify the work of any artist you're familiar with. The same isn't true of the high-end packages, which tend to impose themselves more on the art (or perhaps it's because all their users are trying so hard to disguise their art as photographs?) If you want to get the most realistic results from Bryce I would advise using it for outdoor scenes, which it's best at, use custom skies, use soft shadows, use haze, don't choose your textures until you've decided on the lighting, and use plenty of your own textures rather than presets.