Are they less active and less skill, challenge, or luck based as Devil May Cry 3 or Super Hexagon or Spelunky? Of course, but I still have rules to play by, a challenge/a goal to achieve, and enjoyment that can be gained from it which is the very nature of what a game is.
I call them Story games, experience games, immersive games, atmospheric games, but no matter what adjective I use, I call them games.
Edit: First Person Adventure also works for Gone Home, as you are putting together a puzzle as a goal and that's what the entire genre is about.
The whole "not a real game" is almost always just a bad dismissive argument of saying, oh that's not a real game, it's a fake game, it's stupid and dumb and you shouldn't waste your time with it when you can play A REAL game. Non-game is specifically a branding title to target consumers who look down upon games as saying "it's okay, it's not a childish thing, it's fine for you to play this".
You want to know what isn't a real game? You Need A Budget. Why? It's not designed for entertainment, it's not designed for off-time relaxation, it's not designed for a goal or challenge to achieve a sense of fun from; It's software designed for work purposes.
Now I understand the reasoning some prefer using "non-games", either branding or their own categorising and I can accept that even if I personal disagree. My problem lies in those who are utterly dismissive and insulting toward something because they don't like it or they want to look down upon it. I don't like Grand Theft Auto IV at all, the only use I could get from it would be listening to the radio in game, but it's neither fair nor reasonable for me to say "it's not a real game" because of that.