"The limelight given to controversial games with flashy graphics outshone the long tradition of military gaming. Some of the earliest examples we have of games in history have martial traditions. Serious games just happened to be a sexier turn of phrase. I know it's hard to imagine something taking off in America just because of its sex appeal, but it's true.
"All this hoopla overshadowed the existing $20 billion modeling, training and simulation market already in existence. Companies like Northrop Grumman and Boeing had been building applications that used interactive elements and computer graphics for decades. Usually attached to multi-million dollar sets of computers, the graphics were lacking, but the number crunching was spot on. There's a huge debate over whether a simulation is a game or something else, but as long as Microsoft Flight Simulator is considered fun (more power to you; enjoy), I'd say the distinction is moot. When you use an interactive interface as the primary delivery medium for an application, you're stepping into game territory."
Not that it wasn't informative and topical, but I can't help wondering whether this would have made more sense as the first article?
Oh, well, I'm not the editor here.
No, you're not, but criticism is always welcome. I'm just not sure exactly what the criticism is of.