I'm in total agreement with those saying that SW live action trumps SW animation. It is, and will always be, a live-action cinematic franchise to me. The other mediums are supplementary and even unnecessary.
In general, the broader appeal of live action is easy to understand: We are not cartoons, and we don't live in cartoon environments. A big part of the "magic" of Star Wars is the fusion of fantasy with reality. That's what live action allows, whereas animation can't be anything other than strictly fantasy.
Also, there's a reason why countless documentaries about ILM have been made for people to marvel at the artistry and craft that goes into making fantasy seem real. Watching real people in real environments interact with aliens, spaceships, lightsabers, laser blasts, etc. is inherently cooler than watching cartoon people interact with animated equivalents. And knowing what kind of skill and effort it takes to pull that off enhances the value of it.
Before cinema and television, stage plays had more appeal than puppet shows. It's because of the same fundamental reason: without some sort of tether to our observable reality, there's a natural inclination to regard the material as being too silly. Fine for kids, not so much for anyone else.
Cartoons are intrinsically silly because they only exist in a realm of exaggerated fantasy. That's why animation is so effective for adult satire such as South Park. That show works way better in animation than any live-action equivalent could ever hope to because they utilize the intrinsic silliness to their benefit. SW shouldn't be trying to embrace silliness, IMO. Use *some* silliness? Sure. Be cartoony? No. That's why the phrase "live-action cartoon" is usually meant to be derogatory.
Leave it to ajp to put into words exactly what I couldn't about why cartoons just do nothing for me. Is it prejudice? I guess. But not one I feel a particular need to address.