The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
How many times have you walked into a shop to buy a game only to be told that you are not old enough to buy it? Er, actually none, I'm past all that. But is the idea of a voluntary age rating system a good one?
I believe that as games are getting more and more realistic, there should be something in place to safeguard against young children buying games containing lots of blood, guts, sex and violence, not for them as much as for other games players who WANT to play these type of games. Let me explain...
Recently there have been many cases of irate members of the public/press saying that games are far to violent or graphic. This is mainly due to the fact that they see games as only a kid's pastime. This would be justified if it were true, but console and especially PC games are being played by many people over 18, plenty of them over 30! So an age rating system may just show these people that the demographics of games players show that many of them a)want to play these types of game and b)are old enough to. There will always be those people that want violent games banned completely (the same people that want violent and sexual films banned as well) but they will always be in the minority.
Secondly, the system is mostly voluntary, I say 'mostly' because some games, famously Carmageddon, have been made to carry age restrictions. This works well as the people who know about games usually get to rate their age level. The ELSPA system is also good because it gives a wider range of ages for the parents and shopkeepers who want to be aware of the suitability of their games. All in all it's a good thing, although anyone can get a friend/parent/passer by to buy the games for them if they themselves are under-age.
I believe that as games are getting more and more realistic, there should be something in place to safeguard against young children buying games containing lots of blood, guts, sex and violence, not for them as much as for other games players who WANT to play these type of games. Let me explain...
Recently there have been many cases of irate members of the public/press saying that games are far to violent or graphic. This is mainly due to the fact that they see games as only a kid's pastime. This would be justified if it were true, but console and especially PC games are being played by many people over 18, plenty of them over 30! So an age rating system may just show these people that the demographics of games players show that many of them a)want to play these types of game and b)are old enough to. There will always be those people that want violent games banned completely (the same people that want violent and sexual films banned as well) but they will always be in the minority.
Secondly, the system is mostly voluntary, I say 'mostly' because some games, famously Carmageddon, have been made to carry age restrictions. This works well as the people who know about games usually get to rate their age level. The ELSPA system is also good because it gives a wider range of ages for the parents and shopkeepers who want to be aware of the suitability of their games. All in all it's a good thing, although anyone can get a friend/parent/passer by to buy the games for them if they themselves are under-age.
How many times have you walked into a shop to buy a game only to be told that you are not old enough to buy it? Er, actually none, I'm past all that. But is the idea of a voluntary age rating system a good one?
I believe that as games are getting more and more realistic, there should be something in place to safeguard against young children buying games containing lots of blood, guts, sex and violence, not for them as much as for other games players who WANT to play these type of games. Let me explain...
Recently there have been many cases of irate members of the public/press saying that games are far to violent or graphic. This is mainly due to the fact that they see games as only a kid's pastime. This would be justified if it were true, but console and especially PC games are being played by many people over 18, plenty of them over 30! So an age rating system may just show these people that the demographics of games players show that many of them a)want to play these types of game and b)are old enough to. There will always be those people that want violent games banned completely (the same people that want violent and sexual films banned as well) but they will always be in the minority.
Secondly, the system is mostly voluntary, I say 'mostly' because some games, famously Carmageddon, have been made to carry age restrictions. This works well as the people who know about games usually get to rate their age level. The ELSPA system is also good because it gives a wider range of ages for the parents and shopkeepers who want to be aware of the suitability of their games. All in all it's a good thing, although anyone can get a friend/parent/passer by to buy the games for them if they themselves are under-age.
I believe that as games are getting more and more realistic, there should be something in place to safeguard against young children buying games containing lots of blood, guts, sex and violence, not for them as much as for other games players who WANT to play these type of games. Let me explain...
Recently there have been many cases of irate members of the public/press saying that games are far to violent or graphic. This is mainly due to the fact that they see games as only a kid's pastime. This would be justified if it were true, but console and especially PC games are being played by many people over 18, plenty of them over 30! So an age rating system may just show these people that the demographics of games players show that many of them a)want to play these types of game and b)are old enough to. There will always be those people that want violent games banned completely (the same people that want violent and sexual films banned as well) but they will always be in the minority.
Secondly, the system is mostly voluntary, I say 'mostly' because some games, famously Carmageddon, have been made to carry age restrictions. This works well as the people who know about games usually get to rate their age level. The ELSPA system is also good because it gives a wider range of ages for the parents and shopkeepers who want to be aware of the suitability of their games. All in all it's a good thing, although anyone can get a friend/parent/passer by to buy the games for them if they themselves are under-age.
I think it is overall a good idea, plus keeping whinging focus groups and scare mongering press off everyone's backs can only be a plus. However, it seems to me that they have the balance very wrong. To me it should be hitting the same marks as the movies classifications, but taking to examples of Perfect Dark and Shadowman (18 and 15 respectively), I think their content were it in a movie would warrent 15 for PD and 12 for Shadowman, since all there really is in either is violence, guns and some blood (although on second thoughts some of the language in shadowman could prompt the 15 certificate), which you'll see in any cinema.