By your definition, games like Robotron 2084, Ms Pac-Man and R-Type are casual. Also I contest your Sony vs MS/nintendo confusion; many Sony games are one-play, whereas MS and Nintendo games are well known for players committing many hundreds of hours of gameplay to them. Halo is a staple of the professional gaming scene, by definition professional cannot be considered casual.

Also, I think core and hardcore have different meanings. Hardcore usually is the opposite of casual. But core describes how much a game appeals to a specific userbase, usually a console's userbase. There are casual core games and there are hardcore casual games. Also not all hardcore games are core.

Some games can be casual while also being core game. A game like Wii Sports, for example, is a core game because it appeals to the core of the Wii userbase, while also being casual. Sometimes, casuals games are not core. For example, something like Mini Ninjas is casual, but is not a core game for the PS3 or X360, though I would say it's a core game for the Wii.

Some games can be hardcore while also being a core game. A game like Gears of War fits this description. It's hardcore AND it appeals to the core of the X360 userbase. Though, a game can also be hardcore and not core. For example, a game like Demon's Souls is hardcore, but not core because it doesn't really appeal to the core of the PS3 usebase.

I think the term core has different meanings for different consoles. A core game for the Wii would be relatively casual due to it's more casual userbase. While a core game for the PS360 would be relatively hardcore due to it's more hardcore userbase. A core game for the PC would be super hardcore though.

1. Sure, why not. 

2. You are clearly in denial.

No need for ad-hominem, state your case or be considered casual at debate.

I find if you label any game that attempts realism in their graphics as core and any game that doesn't as casual, then you will be pretty good at predicting what the majority of the Internet will say.

I personally find the words meaningless, but to each their own.

My Sony vs Nintendo/Microsoft point was meant to inject some humor into my post. It wasn't meant to be taken seriously, but I still stand by my other points.

There aren't many games that could garner the player commitment, game mechanics study and competitiveness of a game like Ms Pac-Man, let alone the other mountain of coin-op games. Yet these games which still recieve player commitment 30 years later are to be considered casual, where a one/two playthrough game with a thick manual is to be considered hardcore?

Just because it is more casual doesn't mean it's not more hardcore at the same time.

That makes no sense. To me the casual/hardcore demarcation is more one of subjective snoberry than of any objective measure.

Sure, it's subjective (both the definition of 'casual' and its existence). If there were an objective measure then there would be no need for this thread or for people to discuss their ideas.