It seems clear that the article is pushing a specific perspective on the topic of video games and their effect on our psyches and our families. However, their skewed push doesn't invalidate their position.
For your anecdotal comment on shooters, please bare in mind the reason you lose interest in those earlier titles faster may be any number of things. The technology behind them is worse, you've aged and matured, and your expectations from games has changed over time. I do agree that video games hold components that are designed to provide a reward for behaving in a way consistent with the purpose of that game. Some people, specifically people prone towards gambling addictions or the like, or those needing in an extreme way an escape from their reality, may be especially susceptible to that, and find themselves either addicted, or at least relying on the game as a crutch/distraction.
Regardless, it seems rather clear the article is crafted in such a way to promote the idea that video games are dangerous to our minds and potentially our family values.
When I say clear, I mean clear from the perspective of pure journalism. The lead sentence is "Video games are more addictive than ever. This is what happens when kids can't turn them off." That states as fact that video games are addictive, and promotes the idea that they've become more so.
Next, if we take the first few paragraphs, we are treated with a narrative tale during which the video game addict is unreasonable, uncontrolled, emotionally abusive, and potentially violent. Meanwhile, the mother is presented as reasonable, "almost always triggered by a simple request from his parents: 'Byrne, please turn off the game. Please get off the computer.'" The parents are presented as polite, requesting not demanding, and as a result as a victim of her son, or more specifically what video games have turned her son into.
MOST people don't finish new articles or stories. Most only read the headline. Next up are the first 3 or so paragraphs. Blue does post one-sided articles from both sides of the aisle on matters like these, and both sides should be ashamed. Either way, that doesn't change the fact that this article is more editorial than journalism.