Speaking as a person who works in the film biz as an special effects technician (pyrotechnic/mechanical/environmental FX), if there's an overabundance of F/X of ANY sort, it's of the CG kind.  It's all over the place, and it's often used as a crutch instead of a tool like any other tool at a filmmaker's toolbox.  It's often so overused that it takes away from the "gee-whiz!!!" factor that is supposed to be a big part of movies, as practically everything can be written off as being done on computer, which -in the end- will often times ruin the overall impact of a given production. 

This was the case with "2012", which was so over-the-top with CG destruction of whole towns that it literally turned off audiences who yawned and went for their cell phones as a result (at least as I noticed when I saw the film at my local theater).  You could hear people write off various events as "totally done by CG" and other punchline-spoiling remarks that totally defeated the point of the film- to leave you on the edge of your seat. 

Of course, I'm not a fan of CG effects mostly because it horns in on MY work, which has gradually been whittled away from me the last decade-and-a-half.  Creating whole city skylines that fold up over themselves (a la "Inception") is one thing, but leave the real-time explosions and shoot-em-ups to me... it's what I spent almost half my life training for.  

And yes- you CAN tell the difference between real-time (nowadays called "practical" effects) and CG effects, as the CG stuff usually doesn't usually conform to the laws of physics and thermodynamics that guys like me have to keep in mind with doing stuff, even with the numerous physics plug-ins available for MAYA or any of the other software packages they use.  

If nothing else, it's like what a former-mentor of mine told me once with regard to films- "too much of anything is not good".  The same thing can be said about CG effects or anything else for that matter.