Grab a coin and flip it. Heads, you won. Tails, you lost. Is that a game?
Sid Meier once stated that games are a series of interesting decisions. This is a description that allows only for one type of game - strategy. And for strategy games? This is a good guideline. If it's an automatic choice or one that can be solved with a little arithmetic? It's not contributing to the fun of the game. If a player agonizes over it? Then it is.
Flipping a coin might not be a very good game, but it is a game. Elaborate on the rules a lot and you might have a chance driven simulation of Boxing such as Title Bout, or if you go in a vastly different direction you might land with a simple game which doesn't get in the way of conversation such as LCR. These are games, but neither offers interesting decisions. This is not a flaw.
10 pin Bowling is a game where one rolls a ball down an ally trying to knock over ten pins. It is not a decision, there are better results and worse results, but ultimately the aim - the decision - is the same, and the rest is a test of technique. A failure might lead to an interesting risk/reward decisions on the next ball. Some Games that focus on testing skill only produce any sort of decision should you fail. Others don't offer that - your score in horseshoes gets higher the more accurately you're able to throw your horseshoes. No decisions, just a test of skill. This is not a flaw.
I cannot lose when I play most modern video games. Even a game over is just a temporary set back, a reset to a prior checkpoint. If I persist, and the game doesn't softlock and then save, my victory is inevitable. Even if you stop playing halfway through, the game will wait patiently for you to clear it off your backlog, as if you never took that break. Clearly, games can survive having only one possible outcome. The journey is more important than the destination. You might stalemate - Get to a point where you cannot progress due to a softlock, a skill barrier that for whatever reason you're unable to overcome, or simply because another game released that took your game time away for a few months and you never got round to going back to hour 110 on the JRPG you were playing - but the structure of most video games released to the market today renders you unable to lose. This is not a flaw.
Different games serve different audiences. Different people are looking for different things from games. Someone looking for a light activity while they chat about life for the past week is going to be interested in LCR, but they're never going to be interested in a two-hour brain-burning heavy Euro full of Sid Meier's interesting decisions, that would just get in the way of why they want to play a game. And neither is someone looking to agonize over what aesthetic to decorate a room in a life sim, or if their character will say yes to the dragon's offer of a date in a gamebook. Just because a game isn't doing what you, or I, might be looking for, doesn't mean it isn't a game, or is a bad game.