hue

[silent_noir_67]

I would generally say that parents can make decisions on how to bring up kids...

however since a small part of the population goes against this common sense rule...

I'd have to say that it can be viewed as the attendant should warn said parent that its rated M for mature instead of M for mildly violent or whatever just so they have an informed opinion.

other than that then thats the parent's decision.

 

[Jackalb]

As-long as they're not buying their kids Rapelay I think its fine.

 

[Lovesfool]

This whole thing reminds me of a "Big Picture" episode.

I don't understand why there needs to be a law for everything and especially to save people from their own stupidity and absolve them of their responsibility.

Parents should be PARENTING. There is now way around it. The law cannot do it for them.

If someone is too indifferent to care, learn or even monitor the ESRB, PEGI or whatever is valid for his territory, if someone doesn't invest the time to know what their non-adult children are playing, then I don't see how the law, or retailers can do it for him/her.

I agree that the ESRB / PEGI ratings are a bit over the top, but still, they are a valid way to choose what your 7 or 8 year old child should be exposed to. Giving Manhunt or GTAIV to a 10 year old might not be the brightest idea. Generally, giving a M or 18+ game to a kid under 14-15 seems to be exposing them to more than they can handle. Same stands for movies. Same stands for books (don't hand H.P. Lovecraft or Clive Barker to a 12 year old). I know they can easily find sex and violence in the internet, but that doesn't mean that they want to or will actively pursue to.

I think that such legal regulation is stupid and thinks that all people are unfit for parenthood and plain dumb.

 

[Qitz]

I see no reason why they shouldn't. If the parents want to buy them the clerk has no reason to stop them from doing so.

That said, I'd be all for the shop having parents sign a waver saying that they're buying this game of their own accord and know that the game may not be appropriate so that they can't turn around a sue them for "selling their kid violent games."

Parents need to be parents, if they don't want you playing bad games then, well, you don't get to play them now do you? If my parents didn't want me playing GTA (and they didn't) I didn't get to play it, for a while anyways I did find a friend who gave me the game but this was around High School so I wasn't playing GTA at 5.

 

[Tohuvabohu]

I think parents are generally ignorant of the content in the videogames they buy for their kids, especially the younger kids. I remember seeing a mother buy a copy of Left 4 Dead 2 handed to her by her her 8-10 year old kid.
I wondered if she even knew how violent that game is.

I think it's good that clerks do warn parents about the content, but it seems like in many cases, it goes in one ear and out the other. All the knowledge about the violent content of a game is neatly listed in the ERSB rating. Even if thats not enough, a quick search on google for "Left 4 Dead 2 Gameplay" will turn up hundreds of videos. Parents should be stressed to do these things more often and be responsible instead of lumping everything on the game industry when all the knowledge is readily available to anyone.

I have seen some cases of parents being handed a copy of a violent game such as Black Ops by their very young kids. And the parents actually read the ESRB list, and questioned the clerk over the violent content, who responds truthfully by saying it's a violent game involving war and lots of simulated death, to which the parent then refuses to buy the game. Stuff like that makes me proud, when people actually treat games seriously enough instead of believing every single game to be childish and immature.

 

[Funky Flump]

My Parents just bought me Catherine! Im 15 Currently But I had Call Of Duty 4 When I was 13, its all a matter of knowing what will influence your child or not, or affect them negatively in my opinion, and who knows better than the ones who raised you! (Deluxe Love Is Over Edition Soooooo Good! Get It, NEOW!)

 

[Aircross]

Parents should be informed of the game, and they should be blamed for any negative consequences tied to the game.

 

[TheFinalFantasyWolf]

IF the game does have a higher rating that is not suitable for their child, then I guess they should ask the retailer about the spesific contents of the game, just to be on the look out. However, regardless of the age of the child, the parent should none the less, be able to buy the game for them.

I remember my first PS2 game ever, I was about 6 years old and it was MA15+. My parents didn't really care of pay heed to that, hell at that age, I even played an army FPS game (MA15+) co-op with my Uncle.

 

[TehCookie]

The clerk should definitely warn parents what's in the game. The government shouldn't tell the people how to raise kids, that's the parents job. However a most parents don't have the knowledge to make an informed decision, so the clerks should help them. My parents never bought me an M game without knowing what it was, and most of the mature games I've played my dad bought for himself and didn't realize I took it (back in the day you could install a game on more than one computer).

 

[Gildan Bladeborn]

I predate the formalization of the ERSB as the definitive ratings board in the US, and the standard policy of carding minors who try to buy "mature" games, so I acquired a fair number of those before I was "old enough" - stores didn't really start carding for video games until I was old enough to pass their scrutiny anyways (and I'm 28 so I can do whatever the hell I want now, heh).

I'd weigh in with my experiences with my parents and purchasing video games but apart from one or two odd exceptions I got as gifts, my parents never bought me video games, I always bought those myself with my own money.

 

[ElNeroDiablo]

I was playing DOOM (MA 15+) and Wolf3D (MA 15+) at the same time I was watching Power Rangers (PG 15) and playing Thomas The Tank Engine (G) games (aka: 1993-1995), I played Diablo (M/MA 15+) when I was 8 whilst I watched PR Zeo ('96), played Diablo II & Lord of Destruction (M 15+) when I was 12/13 and watching Lightspeed Rescue & Time Force (along with Digimon).

Never once have I gone insane and started beating up people or shooting them (guns have always been rather difficult for the average person to get during my life so far, Port Arthur didn't help) simply because I played 'violent' video games.

Back to the poll, I'm mixed between 3 & 4. I'm not in favour of laws prohibiting selling stuff (remember how well that worked with booze or with drugs?), and think stores should be allowed to card people if they look not quite old enough to buy the rated game on their own, and if the parent is buying for their kid or having to step in, I'd rather they know at least SOMETHING about why the game got the rating in if they're happy sell it to them.

 

[Toriver]

I knew it.

I f'ing knew it.

This is exactly how I thought gamers would treat this sort of issue once the California law was struck down: going back to giving no respect to the ESRB after trumpeting it as the savior of the gaming industry during the whole debate in the Supreme Court. It REALLY makes me question my fellow gamers' true motives in wanting to strike down the law, and it really doesn't make us look good when we outright support 8-year-olds playing Manhunt. M-rated games are, in fact, rated M for a reason. Yes, parents should make the decision, but it's absolutely hypocritical to all hide behind the organization helping parents make that decision when it's convenient, then to blow off that organization and disrespect parents' decisions at all other times, ESPECIALLY in the very immature way we tend to do so.

Seriously, my fellow gamers, it's time to grow up and learn some respect.

 

[Scarim Coral]

While I did vote for the parent to be inform of the game rating by the employee but some parent ignore what the employee said or forget about it (most likely the ones who compliant about the violent game).
I pretty sure that most game have the rating appear on the tv before the game start so I guess there is no sure way that the parent fully understood the game he/ she bought is mature (maybe putting a rating leaflet inside the game but that would be a waste of paper).

 

[Blow_Pop]

I honestly think that the parents should be advised but they know their children the best so they should have the ultimate decision in what their kids play. There doesn't need to be a law about it. When I worked at Gamestop I was trained and told that we HAD to inform the parents and we HAD to check ID if it was someone who looked under the age of 17/18 (I don't remember fully).

 

[Terminate421]

Its the parents responsibility to buying something for their child. There isn't any law required.

If the parent finds that their child is mature enough to understand the subject matter. Let them go nuts, but its their fault if their kid gos psycho on people.

 

[Sigma Van Lockheart]

Parents should be allowed to but the kids what they want but if they go buy gears of war the complain that they did not know it was so violent that?s when the parent needs to be hit in the head by a hard baseball bat. I was in Game(the shop) once when a mother come in pulling her about 12 year old son by the hand holding a copy of gears and she then started to yell at the guy behind the desk saying that he never told her that it was that violent. I just picked up a copy of the shelf and walked over to her and holding the game up in front of her showing her the box cover I said ?look at this case what do you think it?s about? Do you think it?s about people running around spreading friendship and love while ridding ponies? NO it?s about big men with guns and chainsaws killing things and IF you could not tell that from the box art it has a big M at the bottom with a +17 label. Now don?t come in here yelling at other people because you don?t know how to be a parent." She then left the shop saying something about never coming back again.