Or it is easier for developers to create an Earth with the most simple and eloquent theory instead your radical fantasy RE. A flat earth makes more sense, hence easier to portray in video games.
its simpler therefore makes more sense, maybe, but that is irrelevent to it being correct
eloquent is subjective, most people I know think gravity is allot more eloquent than UA, EA, Antimoon, earth's protective gravity thingie, a worldwide conspiracy, a wall of ice guarded by snipers, the suspension of modern physics and astronomy. A sun that can magically shine light on all of Antarctica, but leave the some of the space between as blank. a magnetic field controlled by magical forces so that it allignes on a disk. stars that can create light via who knows what.
Vs. the round earth which is primarily based on the inverse squarelaw of gravity. this gives rise to the shape, gravity, magnetism, wind, ocean currents, NASA space exploration, Sun as a massive star etc.
How can RE theory be more eloquent when you don't have a working map or laws of physics. It's more simple in a game to throughout any need for the laws of physics, cause extra stuff=extra work.