Even then opionion is not consistant. Upthread you note SFII as hardcore, yet the game was designed as a coin-op: to attract passers by into having a quick game. No different than a game like Galaga or Ms Pac-man, a game you agree is casual.

The reality is there are no casual or hardcore games, there are only those who play games casually or not. Some games may be more accessible to those who like to play casually. I know people who play games like Civilization 2 casually. I  used to play a lot of RailroadTycoon2 and introduced a lot of friends to it, many who played it casually. Conversely, I know people who play nothing but CoD constantly. That seems pretty hardcore to me.

Well, like I said, a game can have casual traits and hardcore traits. In Street Fighter's case (I never said SF2), it's easy to learn, but hard to master, so it's a bit of both.

No, there are no games that are entirely casual or entirely hardcore. But surely, you can agree that some games are more casual/hardcore than others? There are games out there that were developed to favor casual gameplay vs hardcore gameplay.

Like you said, some games are made to be accessible to a casual audience versus a hardcore audience. Those games may not be casual in a definitive sense, but I think it would be appropriate to label them more casual than a game made for a hardcore audience. Again, the label casual/hardcore doesn't strictly define a game, but instead serves to identify which end of the casual-hardcore-spectrum a game leans toward

Do you agree that a game like Demon's Souls is more hardcore, or was at least created to favor hardcore gaming more, than a game like Wii Sports?.

A casual game is a game that you can play and / or beat with hardly any effort.

Either a game is accessible or it's not. If it's accessible, then it's more likely to be played by a casual player. Again the line is drawn by the player, not the game.

As for Dark Souls, that's a niche title for those after a challenge. Rather than the snobbish and arbitrary casual/hardcore gamer pigeonholes, I prefer to think in terms of skilled/experienced vs unskilled/beginner gamers, which was the design mantra of the 80s. Now as far as Dark Souls goes, I enjoyed it, but the multi-player quickly devolved into a cheese-build spamfest which anyone could do with a gamefaq.

As for it's difficulty, I've played far, far more difficult games.

I'm getting sleepy so I'll just leave with this.

Won't you consider a game developed with the intent to favor a casual audience as more casual than one that a game developed with the intent to favor a hardcore audience.

If not, then just agree to disagree.

A casual game is one my wife would:

1. be able to play (skill)
2. want to play (appeal) and
3. (depending on the situation) only really play in a social setting; or play on a phone for 5 minutes; or feel like the primary focus of the game is education (mental or physical) rather than entertainment.

So far that's Buzz, Singstar and Blue Toad Murder Files.

"Casual games = Mainstream games that I don't like." is a common mindset imo.

Games themselves aren't really casual or hardcore but they are targeted against people who game more or less frequently. Some games (2D/3D Mario, Call of Duty etc.) targets both groups.
Categorising accessible games as Casual is extremely flawed as that would put Megaman, Metroid and Ghost & Goblins in the Casual bin just for having easy to understand controls.

I really don't understand why gamers are so obsessed with labeling games as casual or hardcore. Unless you develop or publish games that's really not something you have to think about. Elitism is one answer I can think of, as it reminds me a lot of the snobby extreme Black Metal crowd who labels any band selling more than 666 copies of their albums as mainstream crap, no matter if their music is good or not.
It's popular among fanboys as it's an easy way to discredit games (They are not real gamez!!!! 1337!!!) that sells well. It's a casual game and therefore won't count as a Victory Point.

BREAKING NEWS!

user 2000CC (hope i got that right) considers her self to be a causal gamer, yet she beat both Demon and Darksouls, and considers them both easy.

so while some would say it depends on the game. one vgc member may change your mind and have you thinking it's the person.

i think anything involving strategy (Mario, brain age, Mario kart, RPG's, sports, shooters, platformers, RTS, or whatever else you would consider or think involves strategy) to be hardcore.

I would think any game that instills a sense of elitism or futile achievement in the otherwise worthless life of a nobody gamer may be viewed as "hardcore", whereas a game that allows people with better things to do with their lives to enjoy gaming is considered "casual".

So one may view the terms "hardcore" and "casual" as synonyms for "useless waste of oxygen" and "regular person", respectively.

A game is a game. It's defined by its genre, not these fictitious terms.