Originally Posted by Zui QuanThere are a lot of 17-year-olds who shouldn't be allowed to buy the violent (M-rated) games. Many who are on the verge of (legal) adulthood still have the emotional developments level of a 12-year-old.
If parents and game retailers and renters did their jobs and followed along with the ESRB's rating scheme (E,T,M,AO), then legislators wouldn't have to step in. First the parents failed by not playing an active role in what their children are buying and playing. After the initial uproar and the institution of the game ratings, retailers and renters failed by not sticking to stated corporate policies forbidding the sale of M-rated games to minors. Let's face it, legislative mandate is probably the only way to keep the M-rated games away from the kiddies. This way if a 10-year-old really, really wants the latest GTA, then the ultimate culpability for any adverse effects will fall upon the parents where it should be in the first place.
Let's take a quick look at a parallel case: the movie industry. In the past few years (due to legislative pressures) movie theater chains have begun cracking down on underage kids getting into R-rated movies. The result: many studios have begun making their horror movies with PG-13 ratings that are quality films instead of relying on sex and gore to get the kids into the seats. The same thing could happen in the game industry. Instead of a developer trying to push the envelope of shock, violence, and sex and still get an 'M' rating, perhaps they'll focus on building a better gameplay experience that get a 'T' rating.
Hmmm, you made some good point there. Something to think about, but on the other hand it hasnt been proven yet that violent video games cause kids to be more violent.