I think Ayvah's point is that a game world is an artificial (and not least: symbolic) world with more or less different rules of time, space, life/death etc. and doesn't have to adapt or try to adapt rules of what we call our one and only 'reality' (i. e. what we have in mind when we think or speak of reality). And many elements of games are genuine and utterly game logical and don't even fit the special reality system of the game world, so aren't and can't be explained from an internal point of view, they even don't exist as such, such as life bars, action points etc. (at least often it's possible to 'translate' them: as character attributes like 'strong', 'powerful' etc.). One of the specific artificial aspects of (most) games is that saving the whole world actually means saving about 30, 50, 100, maybe 200 of NPCs in a very 'compact' game world: distances are smaller, real-time durations are shorter etc. Also 'epic' fights between whole kingdoms are mostly represented by a couple of figures or troops. What we see in D:OS - 'four source hunters fight five undeads' for example - actually means more than that, actually it means: source hunters of Rivellon fight the undeads. And therefore 'four source hunters fight five undeads in ten minutes of real time' can mean: source hunters fight undeads in a hard and long-lasting battle, and this could be symbolized by a simulated sunset. So regarding the specific artificiality of games it wouldn't be a contradiction by itself, just a matter of design.
