You don't NEED a poker table to play poker. You don't NEED a football pitch to play with a football. You don't HAVE to play with Lego on the floor.

If you want to play Gears of War, you HAVE to play it on a console (or a PC... )

The last 2 are as much definitions of games as they are toys. The first definition is exactly what I'm talking about.

You've helped prove my point. Thanks.

You're definition of casuals is poor. Casuals don't see the value in toys that the hardcores do. Casuals prefer to play a game rather than play with a digital toy.

When does a toy become a game?

Carl2291 said: You don't NEED a poker table to play poker. You don't NEED a football pitch to play with a football. You don't HAVE to play with Lego on the floor. If you want to play Gears of War, you HAVE to play it on a console (or a PC... )

Or you and your friends could put on halloween costumes, get a few water pistols or spud guns and play a GAME in real life without the need for the console.

We used to call it playing soldiers or cowboys n injuns. That was when people went outside to play games with their toys.

this is one of the worst thought out threads i've seen for a while... gratz on finding a new low!!

You pretty much described the difference between a game and a VIDEOGAME.

So, according to the OP playing golf by yourself would be playing with a toy, but playing with another person would make it a game?

I've been describing the difference between real world games and digital games from the start of this thread. I've also described the difference between real life toys and digital toys.

What people are finding difficult is accepting that there is a difference between a video/digital toy and a video/digital game.

Yes.

Clubs and balls are toys. If you're playing with a toy alone, you're not playing a game.

Only when someone else starts playing with your toy does it become a game.

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.

Playing golf trying to beat another person's best.

Playing StarCraft trying to beat the AI.

Playing StarCraft trying to beat a human opponent.

Two children playing with dolls.

Pyro as Bill, why haven't you responded to yo_John117's post on page 2 where the included definitions, obviously pasted from a dictionary, which as everyone knows are the equivalent linguistic counterpart to a 'rule book'... completely contradict your entire argument.
You know what, here, I'll tell you why.
Because he proved you wrong and you have no response.
So instead of manning up and admitting it, you choose to simply ignore him and continue debating your silly, semantically challenged argument with others.
Weak man, really weak.
You're completely free to twist definitions around and subjectively decide what you want words to mean to you personally. But, when you do that, it ceases to be 'truth' and becomes 'opinion'.
It'd be nice, and far less agravating to those to who know better, if you understood that.
If you want to misinterpret Halo and Call of Duty as toys, fine, but I'd like you to explain to me why there's a winner and a loser at the end of a match, two states that can only be arrived at by playing a 'game'
Second thought, don't even bother.