considering they can lose their jobs if they sell underage kids M rated games, I think they were right.
Poll: Not allowed to buy an M-rated game
- Thread starter PrayerofRefugee
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Depends, i'm assuming you're in the states so i'm not too hot on their classification law but it's only technically breaking the law in the UK if a BBFC rated game e.g. GTA (18) is sold to a minor, PEGI ratings - so i'm told - are not actually law but more of a guideline.
However, assuming that it would break the law to do what you describe i totally agree with Gamestop
However, assuming that it would break the law to do what you describe i totally agree with Gamestop
He can't sell it to you if you're not the age to buy it; he could get in trouble for selling you that game and I doubt he'll risk getting fired just to make a sale. You can just order it online if you want or ask a friend/family member that's 17+.
Not sure what else to say; rules are rules, and it's good that you understood that with your post edit.
Not sure what else to say; rules are rules, and it's good that you understood that with your post edit.
Your transparent attempt to condescend by addressing me as "kid" is laughable. For the record, however, I'm eighteen and can buy alcohol (assuming the sky is blue, the day of the week doesn't have an "R" in it and the authorities are in a good mood that day - and of course assuming I can afford to pay the extra tax that was imposed because people could afford alcohol too easily for the liking of Big Brother. And of course assuming it's not before 10 am on Sunday or after 10pm any other day).
Actually, I'm aware of the argument that adults should decide what's best for children. It's bullshit, which is why I didn't bother to address it. Regardless, the reason it is bullshit is because everyone is different - EVERYONE, not just children.
(1) At what point is a human being deemed not intelligent enough to "understand" "adult content"?
(2) Are mental retards above the age of eighteen subject to age limits, keeping in mind your "defense" of age limits? Could a mother provide her 18 year old son with the intelligence of a twelve year old with alcohol?
(3) Where does the parent's right to decide what his/her child is capable of "understanding" come in?
(4) Where does the child's right to decide whether or not he even NEEDS to "understand" come in?
(5) Why is this arbitrary age limit absolute, as opposed to open to appeals? Should not an exceptional child be permitted the chance to prove to a hearing he is "mature" enough to meet their requirements?
Maturity is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to gaming. You don't need to have been indoctrinated into the government-of-the-day's ideas on morality - you SHOULD be allowed to play whatever you want, whether or not the present government thinks they've had enough time to ensure you won't think about "wrong" things in a game.
Put it this way: some standards consider Pokémon to be a game that's too morally wrong for ANYONE to play. To lesser minds - yours - it might not seem apparent, but this is exactly the same problem as the law as it is today.
Actually, I'm aware of the argument that adults should decide what's best for children. It's bullshit, which is why I didn't bother to address it. Regardless, the reason it is bullshit is because everyone is different - EVERYONE, not just children.
(1) At what point is a human being deemed not intelligent enough to "understand" "adult content"?
(2) Are mental retards above the age of eighteen subject to age limits, keeping in mind your "defense" of age limits? Could a mother provide her 18 year old son with the intelligence of a twelve year old with alcohol?
(3) Where does the parent's right to decide what his/her child is capable of "understanding" come in?
(4) Where does the child's right to decide whether or not he even NEEDS to "understand" come in?
(5) Why is this arbitrary age limit absolute, as opposed to open to appeals? Should not an exceptional child be permitted the chance to prove to a hearing he is "mature" enough to meet their requirements?
Maturity is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to gaming. You don't need to have been indoctrinated into the government-of-the-day's ideas on morality - you SHOULD be allowed to play whatever you want, whether or not the present government thinks they've had enough time to ensure you won't think about "wrong" things in a game.
Put it this way: some standards consider Pokémon to be a game that's too morally wrong for ANYONE to play. To lesser minds - yours - it might not seem apparent, but this is exactly the same problem as the law as it is today.
I do not believe that the decision was made properly. I am not sure how it could have been done, but there should be a system in place where your past purchases of games and what they were rated should have been the deciding factor if you were underage and attempting to purchase a Mature(17) rated game. As is, I am 19 and I have identification, so this does not affect me any more. But I remember how frustrating it was trying to buy an M rated game only to be told I was 9 months too young.
Bullshit in my opinion.
Bullshit in my opinion.
Yes they are right, because if your parents wanted they could sue them for letting them sell something 17+ with you being less than 17
The problem with ratings is that the ratings are always just a little bit higher to begin with. A T game could be rated E, and an M game could be rated T. Halo 3 for example, could be a T game, but because there is blood and some parents would freak out, they have to slap on an M rating
God of War III and Dante's Inferno show us the reason there are M ratings however, since both give images and language and everything that younger kids shouldn't be playing without parent permission
They need to add about 5 new rating levels between E and M, since there are games that are T but not for under 15 and there are E games for 12 or older.
The problem with ratings is that the ratings are always just a little bit higher to begin with. A T game could be rated E, and an M game could be rated T. Halo 3 for example, could be a T game, but because there is blood and some parents would freak out, they have to slap on an M rating
God of War III and Dante's Inferno show us the reason there are M ratings however, since both give images and language and everything that younger kids shouldn't be playing without parent permission
They need to add about 5 new rating levels between E and M, since there are games that are T but not for under 15 and there are E games for 12 or older.
The problem is that removing all restrictions and all age ratings will only enable people who hate video games to redouble their propaganda over how video games warps your children and causes all evils in the world. At least with the current situation the argument "But children shouldn't be playing *insert M/18+ rated game here* in the first place!" can (and should) be used against them.Schneizel said:
Meh, but the advantage of seemingly arbitrary guess work eliminates inconsistencies, and possible injustices.gamefreakbsp said:
Like, what if you did turn 17, but the cashier uses his system of judgement and decides you're too baby faced to handle this game. Or what if the cashier doesn't think gingers can handle adult content.
If we made it 17 +/- 2 months, why not 3 months? Why not 6?
Fact is, it's fair enough, which is why it will never be changed.
Not really.It's a Bus Pass which probably wouldn't be accepted as I.D anywhere apart from buses.Not sure about where you are but in Ireland the only forms of I.D most places will accept are Passport and National Age Cardninjapenguin981 said:
I agree with just about everybody here in that the employee was right to say you're not allowed to buy it. Rules are rulse, etc, etc.
I also agree that the rules are quite stupid sometimes, and that one month doesn't actually make a difference in how mature someone is, and how they may handle violent material (save for a one month old baby vs a two month old one, but if you were to pull that argument card, I would have to call you a shit eating cock gobbler, and imply my desire to devour your heart, while also disspelling any allegations toward homophobia by the aforementioned mention of penile insertion into your mouth).
I'm not sure where my train of thought went as soon as the bracket started.
I also agree that the rules are quite stupid sometimes, and that one month doesn't actually make a difference in how mature someone is, and how they may handle violent material (save for a one month old baby vs a two month old one, but if you were to pull that argument card, I would have to call you a shit eating cock gobbler, and imply my desire to devour your heart, while also disspelling any allegations toward homophobia by the aforementioned mention of penile insertion into your mouth).
I'm not sure where my train of thought went as soon as the bracket started.
Might seem a bit stingy that he wouldn't let you off a month, but it's the law and it stops things going haywire.
Sell something to someone who's a month away, the next guy comes over and says "hey i'm 17 in a month and one day!" and so on.
If you don't stick to boundaries they change a little too easily.
Sell something to someone who's a month away, the next guy comes over and says "hey i'm 17 in a month and one day!" and so on.
If you don't stick to boundaries they change a little too easily.
Yet it was good enough for the guy in the other GAME just a little bit further down the road?MetalDooley said: