Video game ratings should be enforced, not ignored

by Kendra Halsell, staff writer

Video games supposedly have ratings on them to indicate what age range should be allowed to play the game, but those ratings are rarely followed.

The video game ratings include: E, for everyone (formerly K-A, which meant kids to adults could play); EC, for early childhood, which is meant for anyone who is 3 years old or older; T, for teens, meant for anyone from the age of 13 and older; M, for mature, which is meant for anyone who is 17 or older; AO, for adults only (but according to the web site www.howstuffworks.com, there has not been a game made with this rating); and RP, for rating pending.

Some parents complain about the way their children act out the violent scenes in the games, but they are the ones who buy their children the games or allow other people to buy the games for their children.

I would like to know why in the world game ratings are even put on games if they are very rarely followed. I mean you have 3 year olds playing games such as 007 and Grand Theft Auto, which are clearly rated M, for mature, when they should be playing either rated E or EC games. Parents who let their young children play games such as those are just basically saying that they want their kids to go out and steal cars and shoot people. It’s as if the people who create these games are trying to promote violence. I could be all-wrong about that, but that is what I get from those games.

Video game ratings are suppose to be there for a reason, so why not just follow them and stop complaining about the violent acts of children. Stop buying small children video games that they are not mature enough to play. I think that video games play a roll in why so many American adults and children are so violent.

A conclusion to stopping the violent acts of children and adults would be to either stop their playing of the violent games or at least limit their game playing.