Really, games are like any other piece of media. Engage with them passively, and uncritically and one won't get much value out of it. Engage with them actively and they can have a positive impact.
My parents didn't really care what media I consumed but cared more about how I consumed it. Plenty of games have the potential to explore and foster interesting experiences. I've learned a lot through games. In fact I'd say that two of the most important things I've learned I've learned through games: the importance of a strong work ethic, and discovering my passing for computer technology (which later led to a career in software development). Games can be mindless and intellectually numb. But the same could be said of any other piece of media.
Granted I am of the opinion that battle Royale games provide less than strategy games, and most RPGs but I am not nearly experienced enough in the BR genre to have much conviction in this opinion.
I think this comment is right on the mark. The core question parents should be asking is, how is my child engaging with the game? If it's a few hours of spending time with friends, great. Even if it's many more hours and they are engaging in a competitive manner that can be a rewarding experience. However I suspect that the much more common modality is a mixture of active and passive consumption, which can quickly become passive due to some elements of the current gaming environment. My personal experience with ~3K hours of Dota throughout high school and early college was highly mixed, with periods of intense engagement and many many more of mindless playing or watching twitch (outside of the 3K in-game hours).
I think that there are valid concerns to the high potential for passive time-sinking in these modern games which exist with an entire ecosystem of a competitive scene, streaming personalities, skins, friends, and more. There are healthy ways to engage with each of the elements of these ecosystems, but it is something that should be discussed and monitored.
I think most games have orthogonal twitch and strategy components. All games of course have some strategy -- even decided games like Checkers have the optimal strategy, along side unoptimal ones.
There are "action" games (high twitch) that have very high strategic content. The kicker is that sometimes twitch can serve as a ceiling for strategy. That is, below a certain twitch level, some strategies are not viable or available. Games with very low twitch minimize this, like turn-based RPGs and strategy games. But even StarCraft requires high twitch (aka unit micro) to execute some strategies!
Even ostensibly twitch based games have a lot of strategy. 2D fighters have tons of strategy, so do games like * Souls. Stealth games also require good strategy and spacial reasoning coupled with strong execution.
My parents didn't really care what media I consumed but cared more about how I consumed it. Plenty of games have the potential to explore and foster interesting experiences. I've learned a lot through games. In fact I'd say that two of the most important things I've learned I've learned through games: the importance of a strong work ethic, and discovering my passing for computer technology (which later led to a career in software development). Games can be mindless and intellectually numb. But the same could be said of any other piece of media.
Granted I am of the opinion that battle Royale games provide less than strategy games, and most RPGs but I am not nearly experienced enough in the BR genre to have much conviction in this opinion.