I agree with a lot that has been said here. Video games are first and foremost a diversion. They can't teach you anything about course architecture anymore than they can teach you about real golf proficiency. That's part of their charm. All of the reward with so little of the work. Simple fact is, golf is HARD. To most people, why deny myself the thrill of "playing" Augusta AND breaking Wood's -20 Masters record when I can barely break 90 in real life?
I grew up the middle child of a large family in northern Minnesota. I could never begin to afford to play a round at Pebble Beach, but I loved watching the AT&T on television. When I found the Tiger Woods games in the late '90s, I liked the fact that I could "play" Pebble. I knew it wasn't the real course, but it was like enough the real course that I didn't care. It gave me a dream, a chance to experience the course I'd seen on T.V. in a way that bore just enough resemblance to real life that I didn't care. But the games themselves didn't teach me anything about architecture. What they did do was serve as a springboard. By playing the video game courses, it lead me to want to know why the courses are the way they are. I can't tell how the course sits on the land, so I'd look it up. I'd peek, and read, and wonder. Still do. What makes Pinehurst #2, Pebble Beach, or Pine Valley so great when compared to any other routing and evolution possible FROM THE SAME SITE? Why did they build it this way, and not some other way? So even though, yes, the games can't teach you anything themselves, I can see their usefulness, especially in an age where more people learn and respond from video than other mediums.