Patch Teen Peer Panel Question of the Week

Molly Soto of St. Joe has this week's question. She wants to know should there be a required age to buy violent video games such as Halo or Modern Warfare or others?

Catherine Toman, St. Joseph's Academy

I don’t believe there should be an age requirement for violent video games. Similar to film ratings, I think the age recommendations that already exist offer enough guidance for parents. Parents should use their own discretion in buying these games for their children or allowing their children to purchase them on their own.

Also, restricting consumer-ship of such a common product has potential to hurt the gaming industry in a time when the economy needs all its resources—and for what? The blind assumption that increasing the age to buy something will actually protect kids from videogame violence? If a kid wants his video game, he’ll find a way to get it.

Allison Hermann, St. Joseph's Academy

I do believe that their should be a required age to buy violent video games. So many kids are starting to play games like Halo and Modern Warfare at such a young age and those type of games can leave a bad influence on kids at a young age.

If there was a required age to buy these games,then maybe it would prevent children from playing these types of games. Along with an age requirement, I also believe that parents should be more informed on what these games really are.

If they saw the kind of things done on these video games, I believe that some parents would stop allowing their children to use these games. I do believe that there should be an age requirement on violent video games to help young children have bad influences in their life.

Molly Soto, St. Joseph's Academy

I do believe that there should be a required age to buy violent video games. If children are exposed to violence and killing at such a young age, it can affect their behavior as they grow up. Children learn from their experiences and they are impressionable.

If they are playing Halo and Modern Warfare, they see the violence and killing as entertainment and fun. Their minds then use this knowledge to choose right from wrong and in many cases they do not choose appropriately. 

These games teach them to handle situations with violence rather than seeking a rational solution.  Who’s to say that violent acts from teenagers are not a result of playing these violent war games?

Curt Walls, Ladue

I believe the restriction are necessary because there are certain aspects of life that is shown in certain games. These aspects aren't suited for the viewing of younger children. The images may corrupt a child's mind and cause him or her to imitate the game or act differently in response to it.

Spencer Desai, MICDS

I do believe there should be an age limit on games that are rated M such as Grand Theft Auto and Call of Duty however I do not think the limit should be as extreme as some suggest.

I think watching seven year olds play GTA is ridiculous due to the extreme nature of some of the games however I think a fifteen year old playing it is fine. Rated M games have mature content and while I do understand some parents don't want their children playing those games at all, they're too popular for that possibility to have a real chance at succeeding.

I think the age limit should be fifteen for rated M games because at that point, you realize the violent nature of the games and know it is wrong and should be mature enough to handle it.

Victoria Watson, Villa Duchesne

When purchasing video games, there is already a rating that indicates the suggested age of the player: E for Everyone, T for Teen, M for mature. T rated games are suggested for players aged 13 and up, and those rated M are suggested for consumers aged 17 or older.

Modern Warfare and Halo alike are rated M: they contain "blood, gore, intense violence, and strong language" according to the ESRB Rating Board, the scale responsible for ranking the age audience of which the games are appropriate.
Knowing this information, there is already a system in place that gives a suggested age for the consumer.

It should be up to the consumer to judge whether or not they are mature enough to handle the content of the game, and if they are not, then that responsibility should fall to a parent or guardian if they happen to be under the age of 18.

Not every consumer follows the rules, and trying to enforce a legal age limit for the purchasing of a video game would just lead to the percent of people who always manage to find a loophole.

Rebecca Antony, MICDS

I think there should be, but I don't think that would stop young children from playing as parents often don't know the content of the games their children ask them to buy, assume it is in all innocence, and buy the games.

Parents who do know the violent content of the games often either don't think much of it or succumb to their children's constant nagging, not knowing what the possible aftermath of young children watching, let alone playing, these games could be.