[Dragon]

Also agreed with that. Stanislaw Lem's stories are a prime example of awesome hard SF. Though I don't anything other than an adventure game could be based on his stories, since they're light on action and heavily focused on characters.
Realistic games often make a seemingly mundane things a part of challenge, and thus provide a more immersive experience. For instance, did you know how hard is it to land on a carrier or rendezvous with something in space? It's not easy, and maneuvering a ship for docking can be just as exciting as a dogfight in FS.
As for stories, just take a look at Lem or Asimov. Writers from that era were fairly realistic, though their science might be somewhat outdated by now (though Lem was spot on in quite a few of his predictions). Not that it makes their books less interesting.

[Polpolion]

KSP emulating real life? Even if you forget about the small mass Kerbin has (which is necessary due to how PhysX works) and the general scale of the game, there's nothing aside from physics that emulates real life.

Nothing aside from physics that emulates real life... uh... right... space flight simulator... nothing but the physics...

[Dragon]

At least, when we're talking stock parts and the current release. Of course, addons bring KSP closer to reality, but it's still a game. Fairly realistic one when it comes to physics, but that's it. You won't tell me that Kerbal spacecraft design philosophy, testing methods or technology are anywhere near RL data. If you know something about rocketry, then stock mass and thrust values are ridiculous, the speeds are sluggish and the planet's cross section is about the size of Poland.

[qwadtep]

For instance, did you know how hard is it to land on a carrier or rendezvous with something in space? It's not easy, and maneuvering a ship for docking can be just as exciting as a dogfight in FS.

RTB objective, now with 300% more Top Gun for the NES