Thread: Game age ratings

the rates should stay to keep kids from buying games without the parents knowing, but if a mother buys a violent game for her kid and then he kills someone
a. the game probably was not what pushed him over teh edge
b. if it was, then she bought it KNOWING what it was and canot blame it.

on the other hand, most people who claim violent video games ruined their life either say that because of Carpel Tunnel (spelling, not sure), or they really had something else going on and needed a scapegoat.
as you can probably tell i don't believe in psychology.

Then what about racing games, I think there should be a higher age rating on those games, most of them have the 3+ age rating, i think they should be rated as 16+ or 15+.
They are actually a little like some killing games, you can drive like you want in those games and don't get hirt, allthough you need a drivers licens in real life, but you can still kill if you drive like you do in the games, in one way it's kind of the same.
In killing games you don't get hurt either, but you do in real life, you just don't need a licens to kill...

Parents are always trying to blame everything else for their own incompetence. Video games are not the problem, raising their kids are. If they just sat down, talk to their children and take the time to raise them into good citizens, then maybe they can grow up to be good citzens.

I ignore them for the simple fact that they are issued without the entire game being played. They are rated by people who are not gamers and who do not know about games.

The perfect example of this is the hot coffee mod in GTA:SA. The game was given an M rating in America for its violence, drugs, etc but as soon as a patch was introduced that opened up a sex mini game it was immediately changed to AO and there was a campaign to get it banned. Think about this for a momnet. The rating was changed because of a patch that was made by a fan, ie it was content not included with the game, and that the player had to download them selves. This was idiotic.

Now consider that the exact same thing happened to Oblivion when a mod was released so female characters would not wear clothes.

How stupid is it to rate a game on something that is not included on the game? I think they are good for a general guideline as whats appropriate but what would be better then an age rating would be a description of whats in it. Like instead of having 15 or 18 written on it, have Violence and Sexual Content written on it so people know whats involved.

Yeah the system is pretty flawed. But seeing as how it's there, at least parents can't blame the games for being violent seeing as how they are the ones that bought it for their kids. But as for me, I don't look at the ratings cause I'm 19 and can get anything so why do I care.

Originally Posted by deodaclan18

Yeah the system is pretty flawed. But seeing as how it's there, at least parents can't blame the games for being violent seeing as how they are the ones that bought it for their kids. But as for me, I don't look at the ratings cause I'm 19 and can get anything so why do I care.

I'm 16 and have been sold 18 rated games...Ive seen people a lot younger then me being served them as well. Ive also seen parents buying violent games for their kids. Hell Ive even seen parents saying that they wouldn't buy a game just because it had 3+ on the box and then they bought that god awful 50 Cent game.

In Europe, the age ratings only serve as a guide. Stores are allowed to sell an 18+ game to a 5-year-old for all they care.
The parents should take responsibility in the education of their child(ren) and make sure the child(ren) only gets games they approve of.