Should the age of "M" games be lowered to the age of 14?

Asked by: kersh1234
  • Like no child or even parents gives a **** about this.

    It should because these games do effect little to nothing and everybody plays them. And seriously they are even parents buying these games for their children. And if they aren't allowed to play this games the kid will meet his friends and then play these games there. So it already is like it happened.

  • Get over it.

    Ok 75% of people who these games are 10 year olds. Play GTA online and you will know that most the players are 9. Go to school and listen to peers talking about their kill streaks in there games. The language used in these games is a lot more professional than the language you would hear at a school if you hear students talking and *TO PARENTS* you would be surprised what your perfect little angle says. They say words you didn't think they would know. And you are worried about 2 F bombs in one of the worlds worst and ultra UNREALISTIC video games on the planet.

  • Yes we should

    Because half the people playing the games are kids and the other half are 30 to 50 years old. Plus if kids want the game they can go buy it. Oh wait they cant because they need to be 16 and older. It would be easier for the age to be 14 so the parents don't have to do all the work of getting it for their kids and having the kids do it insted

  • The question should instead be why not?

    Profanity being rather the main concern here as I read the comments. There are other concerns such as sexuality in games. However I will address the main concern first.

    Profanities are just mere words. It is the meaning that people put to those words that matter. The word "Humbug" was considered a rude word in the past. That exact same word in the present is of no relevance to anyone. However now there are other words in it's place.

    So what does that say about profanity. As time changes so does the linguistic of profanity. There is nothing anyone can do about that. Unless we would choose to stifle free speech and run the world under dictatorship. Forcing what a group of people think is right. In this case forcing a world of no profanity.

    I see the concern of how parents would want children to remain innocent. To be pure. However for how long can parents maintain that innocence and for how long can they keep them wrapped up in a bubble?

    In the past with no media. Quite an easy task. In the present, quite near to impossibility. So instead the focus should be on educating children to things that they now are getting exposed to earlier and earlier.

    The notion is that kids won't understand. I beg to differ. Kids of the current generation are quite the informed ones. They know well about what is going on around them in the world. So parents should instead educate them. Instead of trying to stifle free speech in the world.

  • Stop trying to limit people!

    The question should be why shouldn't it be lowered, and not why it should be lowered. There aren't enough good reasons of having M at age 18. Let kids do what they want. Having the 18 M rating doesn't stop kids from playing the game without their parents knowing what happens in the game or even that they are playing the game.

  • Its not like they don't see violent things already In movies there are more violent things

    My son hasn’ Changed a bit his grades are
    Still fine some m games should be m like gra but fallout is not that bad it has like two bad words and its not like he hasn’t heard those words before it wouldn’be a big deal if a kid could go to gamestop himself but no we have to go ourselves

  • Yes it definitely should

    First, the is a negative opinion in the media about violent games such as Battlefield, GTA and Call of Duty and how they can make young people "become violent". I disagree with this statement because firstly you have to have a specific mindset to be able to harm people and not anyone could just walk down the street with an automatic rifle and kill a lot of people. Secondly if you are a parent and you don't think your child can handle a game like that then just have the common sense to say no!

  • No one cares about the rating 'M'

    The rating 'M' is pointless take rainbow six siege for example the age is a 18 but it should be a 12 there is so little blood and the age 'M' is s pointless because if you go looking on any website that parents put advice on it 90% of it is saying it shouldn't be a 18 it should be a 12 or a 13. If anyone knows someone working for ubisoft or this gets enough like to put this through to every 'M' rated game ask them to change 'M' for good

  • They should be allowed because that is when they mature

    Ids should at least be in double digits when they play or buy mature Video Games. If a kid wants a 17+ game let them but with one catch. That catch is that they have to be at least double digits meaning 14 and up. When a kid gets to double digits that is when they usually start to mature more because that is when puberty starts so they might be more mature about it. If a kid is under 14 and wants to buy a mature game like Call Of Duty they should at least have a parent with them. If a kid is 14 then they shouldn’t have to have a parent with them because they are starting to mature more.

  • Teens end up get their hands on the game anyway

    Games like grand theft auto can remain 18 plus but games like call of duty should be able to be purched at 14 or 15 they always get their hands on the game and instead of annoying a parent to go they might be at work they can just go without them

  • No it shouldn't.

    The opposing side might think of it as some kind of joke but gaming seriously affects kids.There are kids who kill others or themselves for games. A 16 year old was arrested recently for killing his own brother because of flappy bird. It wasn't even rated "M". Kids and teens are basically not mature enough. Hence rated M for mature.

  • M is intended for 17+

    The ESRB says that games rated M are intended for those who re 17 or older. Just because people younger than that play M games, doesn't mean the rating should be changed. If a parent believes that their kid can handle playing an M game, let them, but don't let all parents assume that their 14 year old can play COD because the ESRB says so.

  • The constraint is there for a reason.

    At the age of fourteen, kids are still kids, and are very, /very/ impressionable. Don't jump to conclusions, I'm not saying that kids will see virtual murders and become violent. But M rated games have more than just killing. There are sexual themes that teach kids sex is without consequence and further objectifies our society. Cussing in games causes kids to believe it's okay to disrespect people. I realize our society is currently in the toilet in the respect area, but that doesn't mean we allow disrespect to continue and grow just because it's becoming rampant anyway. Kids need to learn respect and boundaries, not how to earn the next checkpoint in a game. That should be our priority first. In my opinion, not even sixteen-year-olds should be allowed to play some of the M games, but I'd rather they be the less-impressionable sixteen-year-old than the extremely-impressionable fourteen-year-old. At least sixteen-year-olds can make more rational decisions. Fourteen-year-olds can't for the most part.

  • The Age Limit is there for a reason

    No, it shouldn't be lowered. Some games that are rated M are inappropriate for 14 year olds, and we shouldn't just lower it because they play it anyway. It should be the parent's responsibility to monitor what the child is playing, and by lowering the age limit we will be promoting the idea that "If lots of people do it anyway, we might as well make it available to people of a lower age".

  • ESRB needs to rate games that are really appropriate

    I agree that COD should be lowered and mild games such as halo 3 also be lowered. I think M rated games should only be present on adult or strong games like Grand Theft Auto, I think 17 is appropriate because when you're 17, you're a high school senior, and should already know the differences between real and fake.

  • NO THey Shouldnt

    Becuaes C O D IS BAD SO IS GTA AND OTHER GAMES no no no no no no no no no no no no no no o on on o on no no no o ono no no no no no o n N O NO NO NO NON NO

  • Im 14 friends i know what im talking about

    I am scarred by outlast. It's absolutely gross. I accidentally sent a youtube link of it to my friend & she's SO INNOCENT. I'm cringing just thinking of her watching it since she can't even handle john green... And she's insisting on watching it now gosh dang. Age restrictions also tell you whether it's appropriate for your age. Do you want to go "oh, you can round 14 to 10, my eIGHT YEAR OLD CAN PLAY IT" just because they ask? It's there as a reasonable guideline ok.

  • We should expand the rating system

    I believe the ESRB needs to include more precise age recommendations, not shift M-rated games to 14+. I believe there are games that not all 14 year-olds can handle, like Manhunt and GTA. However, there are some games that I believe 14 year olds can definitely handle like Call of Duty and Battlefield, but aren't able to receive a T rating because of potential backlash from parents. I think the ESRB system should be more like PEGI, and include more tiers of ratings, like a 15+ in between the mature and teen rating. Better yet, I think ESRB should include exact age suggestions between 3-18. But like R-rated movies in the past, eventually a majority of parents will understand that not all the ratings are accurate and exceptions can be made, so I wouldn't be so worried about the impact it has on parental restrictions later.

  • Who even cares.

    Nobody obeys the esrb ratings. Who even cares what the specific age associated with each rating is? If somebody wants to play something, they just do. Did you know the ESRB system was only created as a marketing technique? If you try to look it up, you might hear otherwise (for example, "it was created in response to mortal kombat games blah blah blah") but that's not the truth. More adult rating = more attention/more sales/more interest.

  • We need the ratings.

    Of course, M is intended for seventeen years of age and older. There are obvious reasons why its labeled that way in the back. (Ex. Sexual Content, Drug references, Blood and Gore, Strong Language, Ect.). Lowering down the ratings and their age requirements is like allowing a fourteen year old to see a rated R movie. Also, there are plenty of people out there blaming violent video games for our youth crimes today, which I can confirm with statistics that it is NOT the case. But right now, ratings is all the gamers have from being entirely blamed and possibly the government taking action and prohibiting certain blood affects or cut scenes, and once they start taking some away eventually it will all be taken away. Being a gamer myself, I'm constantly getting bashed on with the whole video games cause violence. Obviously it's not true 99.8% of the time. I'm not gonna lie and say there hasn't been murders caused by some idiot who couldn't distinguish reality from cyber space, but its extremely rare. And ratings on our video games are the only thing holding back an extreme WAVE of critics. I know kids somehow STILL get their grimy hands on video games not made for their age level, but that isn't due to lack of ratings and legal restrictions. Most kids can differ from reality and fantasy, I agree with some of the YES arguments side...

    BOTTOM LINE: Kids don't need ratings, the gamers do to protect themselves from the accusations that their past time induces violent consequences.

    Thanks for reading this, a bit longer than I predicted.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
RossM says2014-04-23T19:34:50.223
The arguments on yes are from disgruntled children who want to play Call Of Duty without their Mother and Father's consent.