Do video games make Gen Z smarter or more distracted?

A new look at the cognitive cost of play

If I were 12 today, I’d probably be on Roblox, building digital worlds and hopping into voice chats with friends. But would I be learning or just zoning out?

This is the question haunting parents, teachers, and policymakers. And increasingly, Gen Z themselves. What if gaming isn’t just a pastime, but a training ground? Or worse: a cognitive trap?

Let’s explore what the science actually says, and why the conversation around video games, attention, and learning is far more complex than it appears.

Not all screen time is created equal.

Video games have long been vilified: blamed for shortened attention spans, poor academic performance, and even violence. But the reality is more nuanced.

New research reveals that the effects of gaming on attention and cognition depend not only on how long children play, but also on what and how they play. Action games can improve visual attention and reaction time. Puzzle games boost problem-solving. Even so-called “casual games” can sharpen focus—if used right. But there’s a limit. When screen time exceeds 20 hours per week, especially without structure or balance, the benefits plateau and the risks increase: attention deficits, sleep disruption, and emotional fatigue.

A generation wired for contradiction

Gen Z grew up immersed in screens. They’re hyper-connected, yet chronically distracted. Studies show that 50% of researchers believe video games reduce attention spans in youth. The other half says they enhance specific kinds of focus. Who’s right?  Maybe both.

Because Gen Z’s relationship with technology is defined by paradox: They’re more emotionally articulate online, yet struggle with face-to-face confrontation. They’re addicted to dopamine loops, yet excel at rapid learning. They disengage in class but hyper-focus on Fortnite strategies for hours.  They aren’t lazy or broken. They’re signaling. And video games are just one of their languages.

Signals, not symptoms

Let’s not misread the signs. When a 14-year-old loses track of time gaming, it’s easy to diagnose addiction. Harder is asking: what’s missing in their offline world? Trust, stimulation, agency?

Games offer instant feedback, clear goals, and peer collaboration. School often offers the opposite: delayed validation, rigid paths, and isolation. The issue isn’t just “games vs. school.” It’s relevance vs. routine.

As I wrote in From Signal to Shift, Gen Z often speaks through what looks like distraction: a camera turned off in class, a game open during homework, a refusal to engage. But these are not failures. They’re signals. And they demand interpretation, not condemnation.

What science tells us

Let’s cut through the noise with a few findings:

• Improved cognitive flexibility: Action games can enhance working memory, selective attention, and task-switching skills.
• However, excessive play (>20 h/week) correlates with poorer emotion recognition and academic decline.
• Strategic genres such as puzzle and simulation games enhance visuospatial reasoning and coordination.
• Therapeutic potential: Specially designed games are helping children with ADHD improve focus and planning.

 Key Takeaways

So, what should we do with all this?

We need to move beyond moral panic or tech utopia. The conversation shouldn’t be “Are video games good or bad?” but:

• What kind of games are being played?
• How often and in what context?
• Are they replacing or complementing meaningful real-world activities?

And most importantly: Are we listening to what Gen Z is telling us, through their habits, preferences, and patterns of play?