While conventional games were physically, socially and intellectually charging, new generation games are found to be the other way round; making participants passive and enervating.

· To what extent do you agree or disagree with this view?

Games of olden times had many dimensions; social, physical and so on. Such games, naturally, fostered many faculties in several different ways. However, what we have today in the name of games, to a greater extent, are not so involving as to make the participants any better.

The roles games play in the mind and body of children are decisive. A game can either foster or spoil their faculties depending on the nature of the games. Fortunately, children of the past had several such physically, socially and intellectually involving crude games. For example, in our culture, there used to be many country games like throw ball, hide and seek, treasure hunt, chase and catch etc. These games involved group of children and they had been able to pick up better physical health, intellectual acumen and socializing skills, to mention a few, by playing such games.

On the other hand, the games children play today are less involving and more isolating? Primarily, most of such games are individual games or maximum for pairs. Secondly, today, it is all supported by technology and children happen to use many gadget and devices which are more programmed than intellectually charging. For example, there are video games of all types, snake and ladder and the like. However, there are a few games like scrabble, jigsaw and crossword puzzles which are some way able to benefit children.

In short, I don’t think, there is much disagreement on the view that older games were more involving and encouraging, and children picked up many skills and faculties. But today, barring a few games, most of the activities children do in the name of play are less involving and rarely fostering.

270 words