Over the past few decades, formal professional training systems have been crossing over more and more with traditional video game technologies and tropes. For example, professional-grade flight simulators used in accredited pilot training could theoretically be approached and played as a video game, though the high price tends to keep that sort of activity low. Software such as X-Plane (which has had a few questions asked here) is starting to blur the distinction between professional flight simulator training systems and commercial flight simulator "games". Similarly, there has been buzz over the past few years about increasing so-called "gamification" in corporate training, e.g. in this article (no relationship), which mentions the rollout of a playable corporate management simulator where high scorers could be identified for promotion.
Are questions about gamified training, professional learning games or simulators, or similar technologies on-topic?
My instinct would be to say, "If it has enough game elements that someone would rationally consider trying it out just for fun, even if playing it wasn't a requirement of their school/university/training program/employer/licensing agency, etc., then it's game enough to be on-topic.", but I wanted to check the community's consensus.
I can also imagine a rule based on how interesting a game is - professional-grade flight simulators approved by the FAA for logging training hours, official military tank simulators used at real-life tank school, strategy wargames developed at the Pentagon, a million-dollar neurosurgery simulator used at a medical school, etc. could be interesting to many people, while a cheap "click the correct thing to say on the job" simulator used by half a dozen small businesses in the Midwest to identify staff for promotion probably would not, but the general consensus on Stack Exchange sites is that how interesting something is is a reason for voting up or down, not on closing.
