Some people believe that modern games do not develop skill in children.However traditional games developed skills in childhood.To what extent do you agree or disagree.

Individuals argue that outside games played by the prior generation perform a better role in advancing children's abilities than electronic ones do. I partially agree with this, because outside playing can improve physics and sociability, in-home playing can boost creativity. To begin with, the main reason why I believe that the games nowadays do not advance some of the children's skills is due to their lack of mobility and, consequently, physical activities. As they normally need to be attached to a device, kids spend most of their time in front of a TV, instead of running or jumping which are important in developing physical balance whilst growing. For instance, kids who jump rope are more likely to be athletic in teenagehood than those who do not. Another reason to justify this notion is the role that most traditional games performs in increasing children's interaction. To illustrate this, musical chairs and hide-and-seek needs several people to be fun. Moreover, the latter also demands strategy from the players to not be found, so creating a plan with peers can help in maintaining an interesting game. Although, the current games also have an advance that needs to be pointed. Several electronic games demand creativity to solve the issue, as they usually have a history telling between phases that needs the player attention to catch important information which can be used during. Therefore, problem-solving and being creative is also a required task and which is worked. To conclude, I somewhat agree with the trend that kids' games played prior to the ones developed currently are better to improve physical and social skills in infancy. However, modern games can improve imagination.