Re: is the esrb doing a good job
I have to disagree that the system is supposed to be preventing people under the specified age from getting games. I don't think it should be it's purpose, nor do I think that it is the ESRB's purpose either. It's not illegal, nor should it be, for a person to play a video game with a maturity rating above their age. Ratings aren't there for people to not play games that're above their age, they're there so that mom and dad won't buy their 6 year old Halo when they see it's marked M if they don't want their kids to be exposed to violence. Ages on games are necessary to enforce that minors aren't going to decide for themselves what's OK for them. If your parents are alright with their child playing a violent game, then that's alright, and the parents will buy it. If the parents aren't in-tune enough with their child to notice that their oldest son/daughter has bought their younger one a violent game, there's still someone old enough, and hence mature enough (not always true, I know) to have knowingly given the OK for the kid to play that game.
ESRB ratings are guidelines, and should be treated as such. Laws preventing young people from buying games enforces that children/teens must have adult consent (obviously from people who're going to be looking out for the child's best interest) to buy them. Adult consent that a game's OK from people close to a child is a much better system than overall age restrictions. Seems like the only reason ages are necessary at ALL for rating games is so that the legislation about selling the games is clearly defined.
Fake violence is fake, and unless the person's young or has problems separating reality from fantasy, there's nothing that makes them hurtful. It's not analogous to, say, buying cigarettes for minors, since cigarettes are directly harmful to your health, period. Video games themselves, even violent ones, don't directly hurt people.
I have to disagree that the system is supposed to be preventing people under the specified age from getting games. I don't think it should be it's purpose, nor do I think that it is the ESRB's purpose either. It's not illegal, nor should it be, for a person to play a video game with a maturity rating above their age. Ratings aren't there for people to not play games that're above their age, they're there so that mom and dad won't buy their 6 year old Halo when they see it's marked M if they don't want their kids to be exposed to violence. Ages on games are necessary to enforce that minors aren't going to decide for themselves what's OK for them. If your parents are alright with their child playing a violent game, then that's alright, and the parents will buy it. If the parents aren't in-tune enough with their child to notice that their oldest son/daughter has bought their younger one a violent game, there's still someone old enough, and hence mature enough (not always true, I know) to have knowingly given the OK for the kid to play that game.
ESRB ratings are guidelines, and should be treated as such. Laws preventing young people from buying games enforces that children/teens must have adult consent (obviously from people who're going to be looking out for the child's best interest) to buy them. Adult consent that a game's OK from people close to a child is a much better system than overall age restrictions. Seems like the only reason ages are necessary at ALL for rating games is so that the legislation about selling the games is clearly defined.
Fake violence is fake, and unless the person's young or has problems separating reality from fantasy, there's nothing that makes them hurtful. It's not analogous to, say, buying cigarettes for minors, since cigarettes are directly harmful to your health, period. Video games themselves, even violent ones, don't directly hurt people.
Comment