I wonder, why the devs chose the incorrect representation of the planetary ring systems?

Here some examples:

It's not correct because the ring system cannot exist in such plane. The centrifugal forces of the planet axial rotation eventually move the rings in equatorial plane. 

Just look at the Saturn, for example:

Almost everything in ES2 represented very realisticly (for a strategy game), but this small detail could ruin the whole immersion.

I doubt it was a conscious decision. Just no one really looked the way you did at it. I didn't even notice for example.

Now for "ruining the WHOLE immersion".... I find that a bit... well... exaggerated :)

There's a situation that this can happen. If a planet with rings are very close to its host star, but not enough to be tidally locked, and also has a tilted rotation axis. Then, theoretically the rings will be in the equatorial plane of host star, cause its gravitational pull may be harder that the planet. Even more, the rings probably will be very wide, case there's still the forces of the planet. This situation will also (theoretically) give the rings not a ciscular shape, bute something close to a sandglass.

Even if that is the case, the above gas giants are frozen/cold? That does not agree with being so close to the star that it has more influence over the rings than the planet

DarthMelkor wrote:

Even if that is the case, the above gas giants are frozen/cold? That does not agree with being so close to the star that it has more influence over the rings than the planet

Well, yes. But as we're how frequent hot jupiters are, and how many have rings or are tidally locked, we're not sure about what is rule and what is exception.

But probably you're right about cold ones

I love me a nice cold jupiler