I'm rejecting infinite possibilities to flat out state that its much more likely that something very unlikely to happen will not happen. That's not dubious. You can absolutely be confident that in the absence of infinite possibilities that something unlikely to happen won't happen.

Neither is it dubious to state the industry will continue to do what its already doing. Nor is it ridiculous to assume innate human qualities would be a factor in what will happen. It is not contradictory for someone to argue that infinite possibilities is ridiculous but then conclude that given 50 years humanity will never suddenly mutate into 50 armed beings and win mortal Kombat. The rejection of infinite possibilities and the focus on a grounded reality is what makes the never conclusion valid.

If you want this "too realistic" thing to be believable then you to need to get off the idea of "time makes anything possible" mentality that ignores omni-present industry factors (such as finances, human error and cultural values) and instead describe exactly what factors are needed for this to happen and the likelihood of it happening in the next 50 years. Taking refuge in the infinite possibilities of future is not going to somehow make "too realistic" games believable when there currently is and always has been an incentive to not make games anywhere near realistic; either from today with its complete inability to understand history or respect history or back then where people just wanted graphics but not realism since it would affect the gameplay.

Not to mention the human factors of different subjective views on physics, realism and the fact that someone would have to work very very hard to make a game like this.

I'm rejecting infinite possibilities to flat out state that its much more likely that something very unlikely to happen will not happen. That's not dubious. You can absolutely be confident that in the absence of infinite possibilities that something unlikely to happen won't happen.

Neither is it dubious to state the industry will continue to do what its already doing. Nor is it ridiculous to assume innate human qualities would be a factor in what will happen. It is not contradictory for someone to argue that infinite possibilities is ridiculous but then conclude that given 50 years humanity will never suddenly mutate into 50 armed beings and win mortal Kombat. The rejection of infinite possibilities and the focus on a grounded reality is what makes the never conclusion valid.

If you want this "too realistic" thing to be believable then you to need to get off the idea of "time makes anything possible" mentality that ignores omni-present industry factors (such as finances, human error and cultural values) and instead describe exactly what factors are needed for this to happen and the likelihood of it happening in the next 50 years. Taking refuge in the infinite possibilities of future is not going to somehow make "too realistic" games believable when there currently is and always has been an incentive to not make games anywhere near realistic; either from today with its complete inability to understand history or respect history or back then where people just wanted graphics but not realism since it would affect the gameplay.