I've checked what "M" means and it actually says "anyone under 17 must have A PARENT OR GUARDIAN to show I.D during the purchase". So its not necessarily anyone under 17 cant PLAY this game its actually anyone below age 17 cant BUY this so if your parents are with you during the purchase and they know its rated "M" its completely legal
Whenever parents think their kids are ready, that's pretty much the answer right there.
It also depends from game to game. I don't find violence to be that bad, or blood and gore. I mean, when I first played Halo I was like, cool, blood comes out when I shoot people, that makes sense. Language? Well, I wouldn't want my kids (hypothetical, don't have kids yet) to be exposed to the F-bomb and the C word when they're like 10 years old. If it was up to me, games with that kind of language, wait at least until 13 or 14. Then comes the sexual content and themes. That puts it up to like 15 or 16 for me.
That's just me though, probably the way i was raised reflects my thoughts. I mean, just look at movies nowadays, people can be killed on screen and the movie will be rated PG. That said, I find it quite hilarious that people can be killed on screen but any nudity (even if not sexually suggestive) at all gets slapped with an R rating in a second.
Well, most people understand the ratings for games are mere general guidelines for age... you can't seriously say "until you turn 17 you are too young for GTA". Kids are exposed to more stuff in Middle School than video games (By the time we're in High School we already know EVERYTHING, and have done half of it). And plenty of kids grow up in a household where hearing the language isn't a big issue... Violence is part of nature, there's as much blood and gore on the history channel and many nature programs than there are in (many) video games...
While on the topic, I'd like to make a statement about the "reality of video games" idea. People say, "Video games are too realistic. They are teaching people to do insane things that they normally wouldn't do." That is a hypocritical statement. By saying that, you are no better than the person who thinks the game is real, because you believe the game is actually teaching people bad ideas. Besides, I'm pretty sure if someone robs someone on the street, just because they play GTA4 doesn't mean that they robbed the person solely because the video game taught them to. Stop pointing fingers at video games and start accepting the fact that people are capable of doing stupid things entirely on their own.
Personally, it depends on mental maturity. Let's face it, no kid is going to reach age 17-18 without being exposed to everything an "M" game has. Also, people who say that all videogames are bad for need to calm the **** down. Do you really think someone might try Need for Speed, and then immediately go out and do that kind of stuff?
17+, according to the ESRB, but it seems like people start playing M-Games at 10 years old.
very true i have multiple M-rated games because if i see someone get shot with extra blood gore and language i don't suddenly think its cool to do it in real life and go postal on everyone
very true i have multiple M-rated games because if i see someone get shot with extra blood gore and language i don't suddenly think its cool to do it in real life and go postal on everyone
Realistically I agree with the standard age requirements. My reason being this. While I agree that there are many children much younger than the 18+ or so that it is now that could play these games without any negative effects, I think that lay with the parents and the education of the child, not any inherent maturity that occurs at a younger age.
Well it may say you have to be over 17 but unless you ,or perhaps your guardians, choose to follow them they cant really be enforced.
The objective was not to keep young people from playing such games, it was to give parents fair warning regarding the content and giving them the control as to whether or not it is appropriate for their child. All the ESRB rating does, from a legal standpoint, is require merchants to only sell to persons over the suggested age.
If your parents buy it for you or are alright with you playing it, knowing what content you will be exposed to, then that's up to them. There is no other legal recourse outside of restricted sales.
The objective was not to keep young people from playing such games, it was to give parents fair warning regarding the content and giving them the control as to whether or not it is appropriate for their child. All the ESRB rating does, from a legal standpoint, is require merchants to only sell to persons over the suggested age. If your parents buy it for you or are alright with you playing it, knowing what content you will be exposed to, then that's up to them. There is no other legal recourse outside of restricted sales.
thats true but it's also about the parents themselves the kid may be able handle it well but the parents may be unable to understand that the child won't be affected which seems very unfair
but the parents may be unable to understand that the child won't be affected which seems very unfair
Not unfair at all. If you are under 18 years of age (in the US) and have not been emancipated by a court of law then there is no 'fair'. It's at the discretion of your parents. Obviously you have some rights. They have to feed you, clothe you, ensure you are getting a legitimate education, and not physically or psychologically mistreat you, but outside of that, you have no rights to fair or unfair.
When I was young I hated this concept and I was totally at odds with the whole idea, however as I've grown and matured and begun having children of my own I understand and even agree with these principles. Honestly if you are lucky enough to own a video game system and have parents that buy you games I think you should not be complaining about anything at all in the first place. You are lucky to even have that, and to argue over fairness is, in my opinion, completely immature and moronic.
