I figured it out. The hardcore love toys and stories, casuals love games.

[Yakuzaice]

Pyro as Bill said:

Yakuzaice said:

The rules are what makes it a game though, not the number of people playing.

According to you, which of these would be games and which would be toys?

Playing golf trying to beat my personal best. Game. You're playing against somebody else. It might be your pb or somelse's, it doesn't matter.

Playing golf trying to beat another person's best. Game. See above.

Playing StarCraft trying to beat the AI. Toy. Clever toy but it's a toy.

Playing StarCraft trying to beat a human opponent. Game.

Two children playing with dolls. Could be a game they've invented with their toys or it could be a story they're telling.

So, in your opinion, a game is any toy with a competitive human element in it.  If so, then why are single player videogames not games?  Every single one of those was created by a human.  Humans programmed the AI to fight against you, designed the levels to test you, etc.  Whether there is a time limit, beating a high score, or just reaching the end of the game, you are competing indirectly with a human.

Why is playing Chess against Garry Kasparov a game, but playing against Deep Blue would be a toy?

What if I play Counter-Strike against someone using an aimbot?  Would that turn the game into a toy?  Or games that have AI in their multiplayer.  RTS units auto attacking enemies nearby.  A turret in TF2 automatically shooting people in range.  Games that mix bots with real people.  What if a game was purely cooperative where the only competition game from the game itself?

Doesn't it just make a lot more sense to call a game something with established rules?