| bdbdbd said: @Sqrl: Then how would parents know, that what type of games to buy for their kids? If you would limit the games only for over 17, there would be 2 options left, from which other would indeed protect kids. 1. It would kill the industry. 2. Parents would buy games for their kids. In option 2, effect would be even the opposite, now parents wouldn't have anything to know what kind of game are we talking about. They would need at least 18 (AO, in US) to parents notice anything. And after that, we would be in option 1. |
- Read a review online.
- Have your child explain what the game is about.
- Look at the box and read for yourself.
- Ask a clerk at the store what the game is about and what actions the player will take.
The whole idea is that by forcing parents to get off their asses and go to the store they will already be taking a more active interest in the game then just a simple "Whats it rated?".
Edit: As far as it killing the business, if that is the case then it only validates the thoughts and concerns of those who want more strict ratings policies. If you are suggesting that by getting extremely violent games out of the hands of kids it would be doing the wrong thing then I have to say I can't really get behind that.
I think the game companies need to make the games that the market wants. If parents are unwilling to buy their children violent games and adults don't buy them for themselves then economics will fix the situation.
PS - Keep in mind I said I thought the idea was extreme, just less extreme than what we have now.
 |
| To Each Man, Responsibility |
