Parents can definitely exaggerate when it comes to explaining certain situations. But I believe that if a parents child or teenager is addicted to video games. It is partly their responsibility to stop the "addiction" and not just let them go deeper and deeper into it. A child could continue to play games and not see a problem but if the parent does and they decide not to act on it then that might be a contributing factor as to why the child delves into gaming in order to find escapism from certain situations.

I can see this part of the research being seen as social ineptitude can lead to video game reliance and addiction. But it can also be used as a way to interact socially with more introverted children. There is a multitude of reasons why children don't prefer to interact socially but if they use online gaming as a method of social interaction we shouldn't outright consider it a problem until it becomes excessive.

I feel as though if you are trying to conduct research around the effects of video games and how it can affect the mental health of children, there shouldn't be multiple concepts that explain the same thing. Video games are not alcoholic beverages or substances, but they can become addicting much like many other things. If it's not fully considered addicting then why are the concept of "pathological gaming" made to say they can lead to future detriments when that's an affect from addiction?