Is it personification to say that something inanimate requires something? [closed]

"require" is not a verb requiring a personal subject. Actually, it can be understood to mean "establish" or "set forth a requirement." The same thing happens with the verbs "order", "instruct", "recommend" and so many others. Being a human creation, laws and regulations can also be said to express the requirements or specifications imposed by lawmakers.

Anyway, I insist that "require" can be used with inanimate subjects, and this does not entail their personification. Another example:

• This game requires a lot of concentration.

Edit: Following TaliesinMerlin's suggestion, here follow some definitions and examples from dictionaries which endorse my position as to the verb "require" not requiring an animate, let alone personal, subject:

• Cambridge Dictionary: Bringing up children often requires you to put their needs first. The rules require that you bring only one guest to the dinner.

• Collins Dictionary: This isn't the kind of crisis that requires us to drop everything else. The rules also require employers to provide safety training. At least 35 manufacturers have flouted a law requiring prompt reporting of such malfunctions. The law requires that employees are given the opportunity to improve their performance before they are dismissed.

• Merriam-Webster's Dictionary: The occasion requires formal dress.

• Oxford Dictionary: ‘the minimum car insurance required by law’

• Longman Dictionary: Campbell’s broken leg will probably require surgery. Most houseplants require regular watering. Regulations require that students attend at least 90% of the lectures. Accounting rules require that corporate financial statements disclose the updated value of assets.

• American Heritage Dictionary: The law requires full disclosure of charitable donations. Skiing requires practice.