I've now had to post the same thing in about 5 threads over the last week, so I thought I'd consolidate the point into a single thread. If people still keep making the same mistake, I'll just link back here.

Many people have begun to refer to games such as Brain Age, Big Brain and Cooking Mama as "non games." The actual list of games that each person believes falls under "non games" category varies from person to person, which should automatically raise red flags about the validity of this concept. One needs only look at the definition of the word "game" to see the problem here. At Dictionary.com, the primary definition of a "game" is as follows:

1) An amusement or pastime.

Brain Age, as an example, is certainly intended to be amusing. I certainly find it amusing, and I'm going to go ahead and guess many (if not most) of the 8 million other people who have purchased the game think so, too. The same would be true of Cooking Mama, of course. We could also point out that Brain Age can readily be used as a pastime, although it's not necessary to do so, as the definition is a Boolean or, not an and. Therefore -- by definition -- Brain Age is a game.

There is no problem whatsoever in saying that Brain Age isn't a game you personally prefer, or have much interest in. I'm sure a lot of the games many of you play are not amusing to me. That's completely fine. However, insisting that the things other people find fun are "non games" simply because you don't personally enjoy them is both insulting and logically false.

As touchy a subject as this may be, this actually reminds me of racism. Historically, when a person wanted to insist that another race had lesser rights than their race, they would often simply insist that this other race isn't human. The simplest example of this would be the classification of African Americans as "mud people." If you don't admit they're human, then they aren't entitled to inaliable human rights. 

Yes, I know that this example is much more serious than squabbles over video games, and I'm not suggesting that video games are being persecuted in the same way that minorities have been. There is precisely one aspect of this analogy that is parallel: if you don't like some subsection of a population, and don't want to admit to the validity of that subsection, you just imply that it is inherently lesser, or that that the subsection simply doesn't exist.

So please, stop with this "non games" argument. You're perfectly welcome to dislike these games, just admit that they are, in fact, games.

ehh no. Just like curling is NOT a Sport!!! and judo is not fighting!

1) An amusement or pastime.

by that defenition, the movies released on PSP can be called games ?

also PS3s home can be called a game then ?

Generally, when someone says "non-game" as part of their argument, I just stop reading. I use to try to correct people, but they usually refuse to believe that their opinion is the only one that matters and then spout off some random number or something else made up that only makes sense in their hollow head.

Interactive being the missing word here.

and these are video games not just games.

"Formally, a computer game is a game composed of a computer-controlled virtual universe that players may interact with in order to achieve a goal (or set of goals). A video game is a computer game where a video display is the primary feedback device. "

so its more of a debate what a video game really is.

"In the universe of interactive entertainment there is a planet called videogames, it’s the one we know best, but it is only one. Also in our universe there are other planets that entertain in different ways to current games."
-Satoru Iwata Keynote GDC 2005

People have misquoted what Satoru Iwata has said so many times that the concept has gone from producing new forms of interactive entertainment (games) to casual games not really being games at all.

If you can find a video of the Keynote I would suggest you watch it, Iwata is very well spoken and entertaining. He is the only former game developer who is CEO of a major game publisher and his insight into the buisness is quite amazing.

"I will finish today with memories from one more franchise from my career – Super Smash Brothers. At the time it was being developed, I was working fulltime for Nintendo. My heart told me I was a developer, so I reassigned myself to HAL to finish the game. Once again I was living on pizza and rice balls and working through the night. From their office it’s possible to see Mount Fuji, and people say it’s most impressive at dawn. But during this period, we would see the sun shining on the mountain before we ever went to bed. Many say the sight of the first light on Mount Fuji inspires them, but for me I hope I never see it again!"

 I would like to know where you got that definition mainly because I would like to know when it was made.  But in any case, by that definition Brain Age is a game of some sorts (be it computer or video).  

define:videogame - google

Also, video game shouldn't and is not one of those hard words to define like fun. Video game is a fairly straightforward idea and an easy one to grasp. Why so many people think things like Brain Age and the likes are non-games just because it isn't fun to them it beyond me, but then again, I generally put those people on the same level as bricks or perhaps algae on intelligence level. It's my firm belief that merely being in the presence of those people can actually drain your intelligence.

Correct? One could theoretically insert the word "interactive" into the sentence, if you prefer. It doesn't change a thing.