Poll: Don?t restrict my gaming purchases! Sub question why is sex conidered worse than violence?

[Colton Caramihalis]

I am a 16 year old gamer, and one of my largest pet peeves is that I need to be 18 to buy M rated games. In my opinion (otherwise known as ?fact?) this is unnecessary. It is a parents responsibility to monitor there child?s gaming, not Best Buy?s responsibility. My parents set a clear line for what I can buy in gaming and what I can?t. If I cross it, my parents will just throw away my new game, and I have to eat the bill. That is what responsible parents do. I feel that it is not in the place of stores to place this limit for me. It does get annoying that when I want a new game I can not just drive there myself, yet I need to get my mother to accompany me. She has better things to do.

 

[sammyfreak]

While your argument makes sense there is another side of the coin. Imagine Best Buy takes the ratings of games seriously and finds it their moral duty to enforce them, are they really doing the wrong thing, even if their motives probably aren't that altruistic.

 

[Jark212]

you only need to be 17 to buy a "M" rated game,(in America)

you could also join the military... but your parents need to sign a waver

 

[KSarty]

They're not doing it for your sake, they're doing it for their own sake. As stupid as it may be, if a parent sued Best Buy for selling a violent video game to a child, the parent would probably win.

 

[buggy65]

The problem with your arguement is that those ratings safeguard the gaming industry's freedom to self regulate and censor. If anyone at any age could buy GTA, then Jack Thompson would have a valid point (I can't believe I just said that). The ESRB was invented so the government wouldn't censor games... this way the gaming industry does. With the "M" rating, Lawyers like Jack Thompson have no valid arguement in the idea that games are corrupting young impressional minds. The ESRB is clearly states the obsenities in a particular game, thereby escaping lawsuit and placing the responsiblity on the parents (where it belongs). If you want a "M" game, get your parents to buy it with you. If you want an "R" rated movie, see it with your parents. Just bide your time until your 17 and wait your turn like everybody else.

 

[Colton Caramihalis]

to sammyfreak

I do see your point. Although there are two major flaws. 1: altruism is not a good thing, so a decision being non-altruistic is good. 2: it is not a corporation's job to enforce arbitrary standards of morality. It is a parents job. The ratings represent only the views of the ESRB, not of my or my families moral code. The morality of purchasing games should be decided by individuals, not a PR team. There are people with much looser standards, as well as much stricter. And the age set by the PR team is unfair to both sides.

P.S. Thank you Jark 212

 

[Colton Caramihalis]

To buggy 65

The gaming industry already has a safe guard to not be censored, it is called the first amendment.

P.S. Jack Tompson could never have a valid point. EVER.

[Edit] I did not mean to sound like a jerk here. I am making conversation. when i reread this it sounded rude.

 

[vede]

I think KSarty has the best reason for this.

(PS: Correct spelling, you forgot to include it in the above post.)

EDIT: Both of your above posts.

EDIT: And capitalization.

Sorry if this seems harsh, but seriously, my eyes were burning.

 

[Colton Caramihalis]

Suing is a epidemic in this country. Judges need to grow some balls and start telling stupid that if they spill coffee it is there own fault.

 

[The Wooster]

I do see your point. Although there are two major flaws. 1: altruism is not a good thing, so a decision being non-altruistic is good. 2: it is not a corporation's job to inforce arbitrary standards of morality. It is a parrents job. The rateings repersent only the views of the ESRB, not of my or my familes moral code. The morality of purchaceing games should be deecided by individuals, not a PR team. There are people with much looser standarts, as well as much stricter. And the age set by the PR team is unfair to both sides.

P.S. Thank you Jark 212

Just because your parents are decent doesn't mean everyone else's are. While your parents may only let you play games that are suitable (in their opinion) little Cleetus' parents from down the road (Cleetus has ADD and kills neighborhood cats for fun) let that little bastard play whatever he wants. I'd rather someone relatively intelligent (like you) has to jump through a few more hoops than the vulnerable members of our society being exposed to media they aren't ready for by shitty parents.

Also. Spell check ************.

 

[bubbaroark0451]

Children who would be seriously influenced by a violent game to real life re-enactments were demented before they purchased the material. This business of claiming Games Kill is just the latest in an array of extremely bored people needing a cause.

 

[Colton Caramihalis]

to Decoy Doctorpus

He is not a "venerable" sad case kid if he kills cats for fun. He is a sociopath, and I have no sympathy for his situation because ADD is not an excuse for bad behavior.
P.S. I don?t think that playing a videogame will make you outrageously violent and start killing cats. It is important to do actual research. Read Grand Theft Childhood.

 

[DeadlyFred]

I am a 16 year old gamer, and one of my largest pet peeves is that I need to be 18 to buy M rated games. In my opinion (otherwise known as ?fact?) this is unnecessary. It is a parents responsibility to monitor there child?s gaming, not Best Buy?s responsibility. My parents set a clear line for what I can buy in gaming and what I can?t. If I cross it, my parents will just throw away my new game, and I have to eat the bill. That is what responsible parents do. I feel that it is not in the place of stores to place this limit for me. It does get annoying that when I want a new game I can not just drive there myself, yet I need to get my mother to accompany me. She has better things to do.

Meaning you say "Mommy I want" and she considers and possibly buys it for you. Though then you'll just have people complain that they had NO IDEA a game like Grand Theft Auto had anything to do with illegal activities and that the nice black and white rating label which clearly states "M - Mature: Blood, Violence, Drug Use, Prostitute Kicking, et al" was "confusing and indistinct".

No, its how it should be. Games should be held to the same standards as other media (namely movies) and the rating systems thereof enforced as such. The less reason the Crusaders For Modern Decency(tm) have to complain the less chance you'll end up with some REAL "limited choice in gaming" by having anything more violent/sexual than smacking a homely chick in a potato sack with a Nerf bat deemed unfit for human consumption. Now granted so such thing would happen without significant to-do but, yeah, better to just avoid it.

 

[Fenixius]

In Australia, the ratings are: G (Everyone), PG (Parental Guidance Recommended), M (Recommended for Mature Audiences), MA15+ (Restricted: Mature Audiences (15+) only). Technically, there's nothing higher than MA for games, but for films/books, there's R18+ (Restricted: Adults Only (18+)).

For those that say "Restricted", ie: MA15+ and R18+, it is a legal requirement of sale that there is an identification check made by the store clerk. I take this very seriously when I am selling a game. I will always make sure that a parent understands why there's a red (MA15+) sticker on the box if there is one. If they still want to purchase it, that's their choice that they've made as a parent.

That said, if someone who wasn't obviously 15 or older tried to get me to sell them anything rated MA15+, I would flat out refuse to sell it to them. Anything else is breaking the law. And is totally amoral. Those rating as there for a reason. And, honestly, I don't have a problem with our system EXCEPT that games are discriminated against by the OFLC (though not by their choice) since there's no R18+ rating.

 

[IM A WILD PARTY]

It's not such a big deal. I used to get annoyed at having to have my brother or mother buy my games for me(was never too bad... mom's big problem was with nudity), but I understood why it was going on.

If I had kids, I wouldn't let them play overly violent games unless I was with them. That's young children, who I don't feel should have the violence censored from them, but should have someone explain what is happening on-screen and how it's different than real life.

Aside from that, it's better that these rules and regulations are in place so that blame can be put places other than the video games welove when someone does something stupid.
It's interesting what society thinks we should expose ouselves to, and at what age. Where I live, in Ontario, Canada, you drive and have sex at sixteen, buy games violent games at seventeen, vote at eighteen, and drink and smoke at nineteen. This being the case, "boobs" are still the most frightening things in video games.

I can now legally buy whatever games I like, however, and so I'm not affected by the ratings system and no longer care. I'd be surpirised if you feel as you do now in a year.

 

[Colton Caramihalis]

I believe that nothing should be restricted by rating, because ratings are BS. Rating systems put more emphasis on sex then violence, which is incredibly stupid. What is more dangerous, decapitation or sex. I think Decapitation wins all the way.

 

[Colton Caramihalis]

Sub Question:
Why is sex considered worse than violence.
On one hand sex is good, it is the reason for the human race and doesn?t generally hurt people.
Violence almost always hurts people.

 

[bubbaroark0451]

Because society says so.

 

[aRealGuitarHero707]

i dunno you could always wake up after a one-night stand with that ohso familiar burning sensation coming from your netheregions.....

 

[Colton Caramihalis]

Because society says so.

I hate society's moral code.