There are two major things going on.

First and most weird, many games don't focus on advertising themselves. Instead, they pay online marketing companies to find them customers. Those companies then produce videos, put them on various online services, and try to get people to sign up for the game.

This provides an odd incentive problem. The marketer's goal is to get you to install and play the game long enough to get it to count as a successful customer acquisition. They are not in the business of getting players to stick with the game. Because of that, they may feel free to completely lie about the contents of the game, so long as it gets sales.

The second issue, though, is why some game companies lie about what's in their own games themselves. It turns out that online game marketing is a big numbers game. You show a million ads, 0.01% of people click on the ad, you adjust the ad, 0.02% click on the ad, you just doubled your ad's effectiveness. Wow! Because of this, there are a lot of marketing companies and standard practices out there, and it turns out that making good ads is hard. So, instead, everybody makes the ads that they know work. For example, the "watch somebody pull keys wrong so the lava falls on the treasure" ad format is pretty effective, so everybody started using it, despite what their actual game was about. If you like the game, it doesn't matter that the ad didn't match up, and if you don't like the game, it also doesn't matter. Mobile companies actively discuss the pros and cons of these misleading ad strategies, not as an ethical issue, but just as another strategy in a numbers game: https://www.mobileaction.co/blog/user-acquisition/gardenscapes-ad-strategy/

"Bonding" is, in most human societies, as a really good thing. We celebrate marriages and friendships all the time. Being dependent on someone else, though, is a bit more troubling, because it implies that you cannot manage on your own, which is bad because it means that you can't end the relationship if it becomes more harmful than beneficial.

But "co-dependency" is a different thing than dependency. The word looks like it should mean "two people who depend on each other," but that's not what it is. A codependent relationship is a relationship that is severely uneven: one party primarily benefits, and one party primarily suffers. Imagine a relationship with a husband who sits at home, drinks, does not clean, does no chores, does not work, does not help with the kid, just sits and watches TV, and a wife who has a job, does all the chores, raises the kids, feeds everyone, etc. That's a codependent relationship, and it's a bad thing (except, of course, for the beneficiary). Some people have what's basically a disorder, in which they will actively look to get themselves into these situations as the caregiver, and they can be described as "codependent" or having a "relationship addiction."

I suppose the easiest way to demonstrate that would be to come up with a counterexample, but I can't think of one.

A computer is, basically, a fancy calculator. You can make a very simple calculator with marbles and some wood: https://woodgears.ca/marbleadd/.

If you make the little planks switch direction with electricity instead, and you also replace the marbles with electrical paths, you've basically got a vacuum tube. This sort of lets you do the same thing the marbles are doing, but faster.

Vacuum tubes are big and expensive, but transistors, which do the same thing but are way smaller, are a great alternative.

If you take a block of silicon (the rock) and slice it into a thin wafer, it turns out you can dig little trenches into them and make A LOT of transistors, and you can similarly wire them all together however you like. This is a horrendously complicated process, but you're left with something kind of like the marble machine except with literally billions of switches.