Well to be honest, the whole rating system itself is fatally flawed and easy to bypass. But you can't compare buying an 18 rated game to drinking alcohol or driving a car (because lets face it, you can be 30 and still not deserving of a driving license). Games are a very special medium and as such should have their own unique rating system.TheRealCJ said:
Let me for example use 'The Saboteur' which was rated 15 by the BBFC for 'strong violence and language'. Compared to [PROTOTYPE] which was given an 18 for 'strong bloody violence and horrific images'. Whilst I agree that strong bloody violence and horrific images isn't suitable for an audience under 18, is rebelling against Nazis any better? Not to mention the FREE DLC that unlocks topless dancers.
Heavy Rain - BBFC 15 - Strong language, violence and sex
inFamous - PEGI 16+ - Violence
CoD World at War - BBFC 15 - Strong language and violence
Bayonetta - BBFC 15 - Strong language and bloody violence
Batman Arkham Asylum - BBFC 15 - Strong violence and moderate horror
It strikes me as odd that all of these games, fantastic and realistic, are lumped into the same rating and category. At the age of 16 I couldn't buy [PROTOTYPE] because I got to see the blood of my victims, but I could buy inFamous because the corpses weren't diced?
None of these games should be readily available to minors, they are all quite adult in their themes and mature in their presentation. I get pissed off by the people who say that videogames are too violent, or that they make people do bad things, not because of what they're trying to do, but because they are pointing the finger in the wrong direction.
The developers make a violent game and then the BBFC judge it and give it a nice little sticker to say what ages can and can't play it. It's not the developers fault that kids are getting a hold of these games.
This is why I try to avoid any topic that even remotely touches on the subject./rant
Other than that... good point man.