I'm a thirteen year-old gamer.Don't hate me for it.

[Fallen-Angel Risen-Demon]

Blimey it seems we caught us a Blimey Brit.... Blimey. ~end bad impersonation~

I kid, I kid... I love tea.

I don't like tea... But I have recently started getting a posh accent...

 

[Ultra_Caboose]

I see where OP is coming from. I've had a lot of bad experiences with younger player on XBL, but I've also had just as many with people my own age. People are pricks in any age group, so trying to separate yourself from them is always a chore.

 

[chinangel]

I've only played against a handful of obnoxious young teenaged gamers, and I can tell from the way you're typing that you would be wonderful to play against/with. ^^

 

[Redfire313]

I agree.

Well, I'm gunna join in here, and hope that I'm not going to get flamed too much. First off, I'm 16. I'd like to think I'm pretty smart. Not as smart as HG131, but pretty smart. I was reading at four, and reading a high school level in 5th grade. I do, however, believe that MOST games are given an M for a reason. I don't think you should have to be an adult to play them, but I think you should a least be a teen. Do you think its ok for a 9 year old to be shooting random people in the street, just for fun? Even if its a video game, not every child is gifted enough to know from the start what is right and what is wrong.

Well, I'll be honest, I've been playing M games since I was 5. Personally, I think it should be up to the parent to decide if their child is mature enough, as not only would it be an unfair law, but an unenforceable one.

I agree, its all up to the parents. But some parents are unable or unwilling to look at the types of games they're buying for their kids. Your parent knew, and understood. I respect and admire that. But some parents just dont care.

 

[AlanShore]

You keep banging on about how "age =/= maturity" and while that may be true, the two are strongly linked. The trouble is that you can't quantify maturity so they have to resort to other measures, such as age, that you can quantify and make arbitrary cut-off points. While there will be always exceptions and kids who are more mature than their peers, you can't create rules and guidelines based on exceptions and have to generalise.

Personally, I dislike kids on mutliplayer games because of their voices and their general attitude and demeanour; they're often loud, lacking in social grace and impatient. Disclaimer: I know that these traits aren't limited to kids but they are way over-represented.

That's just it, guidelines are done so that they don't need to have cut-off points and ignore exceptions. They aren't mandatory, and allow for peoples opinions to override them. Also, I'm going to have to disagree with them being "strongly" linked. They are linked, but I've seen so many immature 20somethings that it's not even funny anymore. For a quick personal example, I have a friend who is 12. He's most likely the most mature person on Live, and he doesn't talk much in game or in real life. On the other hand, my uncle, who is in his mid 50s, acts like a 2 year old if he doesn't get his way, insulting, complaining and alienating people if they don't do what he says.

I didn't say they were mandatory. How can you have ratings guidelines without any cut-off points? There has to be some age at which a person is judged too young to play a mature game.

You're just throwing anecdotes around and considering you're only 14, your experience with people who are 20+ will be practically zero. In GENERAL a 12 year old will be far less mature than a 50 year old, you'd have to be insane to think that the opposite was true, hence why they don't want 12 year old kids playing mature games. Yes, you might feel that it's unfair but there isn't another way to come up with guidelines other than by age.

 

[Dr. Crawver]

I have no real problem with the children persay (although when they scream I can feel my eardrums screaming in tandem), but it's when so many of them think that they are: 1)Absolutely hillarious (Child humour is not funny, it's, for lack of a better word, childish) 2) gods gift to gaming (Far too many kids think that they are completely invincible, and spend their time boasting, and then when they find they're body riddled with holes, the make excuses more than a politician) 3) Never EVER listen or shut up (Do children think we like hearing their voices? Because of who I am, I will spend most of my games playing with friends, messing about instead of actually trying to win, and then the 12 year old joins. Fair enough, they don't know to start off with, but when we try to explain, they either ignore us for...whatever way, or just talk, no sctratch that, scream so much that they don't have the chance to hear) 4) Actually my friend (Don't get me wrong, I do have two friends under 14 on xbl, but when my inbox gets inimdated with requests from kids who I just told to shut up as they fell in one of the other catagories...what, do they like getting insulted?). Yes, I'm harsh, but like I said, I'm friends with two children, because they don't fall under any of these faults, and so are a constructive, or at least normal, addition to the gaming community, instead of the blight that most children are.

 

[AlanShore]

You keep banging on about how "age =/= maturity" and while that may be true, the two are strongly linked. The trouble is that you can't quantify maturity so they have to resort to other measures, such as age, that you can quantify and make arbitrary cut-off points. While there will be always exceptions and kids who are more mature than their peers, you can't create rules and guidelines based on exceptions and have to generalise.

Personally, I dislike kids on mutliplayer games because of their voices and their general attitude and demeanour; they're often loud, lacking in social grace and impatient. Disclaimer: I know that these traits aren't limited to kids but they are way over-represented.

That's just it, guidelines are done so that they don't need to have cut-off points and ignore exceptions. They aren't mandatory, and allow for peoples opinions to override them. Also, I'm going to have to disagree with them being "strongly" linked. They are linked, but I've seen so many immature 20somethings that it's not even funny anymore. For a quick personal example, I have a friend who is 12. He's most likely the most mature person on Live, and he doesn't talk much in game or in real life. On the other hand, my uncle, who is in his mid 50s, acts like a 2 year old if he doesn't get his way, insulting, complaining and alienating people if they don't do what he says.

I didn't say they were mandatory. How can you have ratings guidelines without any cut-off points? There has to be some age at which a person is judged too young to play a mature game.

You're just throwing anecdotes around and considering you're only 14, your experience with people who are 20+ will be practically zero. In GENERAL a 12 year old will be far less mature than a 50 year old, you'd have to be insane to think that the opposite was true, hence why they don't want 12 year old kids playing mature games. Yes, you might feel that it's unfair but there isn't another way to come up with guidelines other than by age.

Guidelines are not mandatory. Hence why they lack a cut-off point. Laws are mandatory. Hence why they have a set in stone cutoff point.

You're really not getting this. Just because they're not mandatory does not mean that there isn't a cut-off point between categories. The mature rating from the ESRB is 17+, if you are 16 the game is deemed not suitable for you, if you are 17 it is, ergo 17 is the cut-off point. Yes, by all means ignore it, but there are still defined boundaries to the rating.

 

[blaberer6]

I guess this thread has become a thing of redemption for all of us 13+ video gamers.

And I say HUZZAH! At last, we can finally not be really prejudiced against.