Today I decided to go to Movie Gallery and rent Metal Gear Solid 4. But when I got there and wanted to check out, they said I wasn't old enough. I am 17, and had my ID, but they said I needed to be 18 in order to rent any M rated games or R rated movies. I've been 17 since the end of March and have rented tons of M rated games and R rated movies. Majority of the time they say, I just need to see your ID to make sure your (17). So I never thought it would be a problem. I told them I thought the age for M rated game rental was 17 and they said not at our store. Then I started to wonder if they law had changed recently and called Wal-Mart to see if I could just buy the game. Even though I bought GTA4 on launch day at midnight, they said I needed to be 18 to purchase and M rated game. So what I'm wondering is, what's up with this need to be 18 to achieve M rated games and R rated movies? Did something I don't know about change? It just really irritates me if they changed it, I couldn't wait until I was 17 so I could rent or buy what ever games and movies I wanted and now I run into this problem.
Pfft. The ESRB is a good concept, but in principle, it is flawed. I know it's not exactly a sign of maturity to flaunt your maturity, but I can say unequivocally that at age 14, I was more mature than the 14-year olds today. If not more mature, definitely more respectful to my elders and property. Age is really just a number (don't worry; I'm not justifying any activities from my personal life here >_>). Two 12-year-olds can be completely different people based on how they were raised. Perfect example: my friend in high school had a brother two years older than he was, yet he (older brother) was a complete jerk. Marijuana, being "gangsta" (chav), you name it. Now, I'm not saying Marijuana is harmful, but there's a certain kind of stereotypical teenager who smokes it. That's who I'm comparing the brother to. My friend had his own issues (everyone does), but I can say objectively that he wasn't as bad as his older brother. Similarly, two different kids handle violence on TV and in movies differently. Some say, "cool!" and leave it at that, some are less smart, and try to reenact it. The latter group needs to be kept away from violent video games (which is the parent's responsibility, not the government), because they can't see something in a fictional environment and leave it there. However, while saying that you outgrow childish behavior is true, there's no real time limit to it. I stayed up all night when I turned 18; I didn't feel any different at 11:59:59 than I did at 12:00:00. Now, before you say, "that's too small of a scope to measure behavior development," I'm not the one saying there is a change in that second. Government agencies, ratings systems, and laws (separate from Government agencies) who impose an arbitrary age limit are. I can't do it now, but I kind of wish I would have tried to buy a Lotto ticket or some cigarettes the day before I was 18, just to see what would happen. The current system is flawed. There's no doubt about it: kids grow at different rates. Some hit puberty faster, some grow up emotionally faster (though the two may be related; I'm not a neuroscientist). What we need is a method to measure a kid's emotional age, instead of their biological age. With psychological testing, I believe this is possible. Now, obviously, there's a problem that arises with the scenario of two kids, the same age, who are friends, but have different emotional maturity levels. However, this is no different than the problems of two kids who have the same (low) level of maturity, but one is older under the current system. All in all, that's the best I can come up with. It's nowhere near a perfect plan, but it certainly makes an effort to fix the problems of the current system. Also, original poster, I'm not calling you a "kid" or anything. I'm merely pointing out the ineffectiveness of our arbitrary age-line culture.
First, thanks for the reply. After reading your reply, I was glad to hear that I was not the only one with similar views on the ESRB video game rating system. I have played video games with a mature rating for quite a few years now, and don't feel as though they have affected me negatively. It just irritated me that I am finally old enough to legally rent and purchase these games, and now their saying I need to be a year older. Did they change the age for renting and purchasing M rating games lately? I didn't know if the age limit was dependent upon the state or place that sold the game. But I thought it was a nation wide system that all ESRB supported stores followed, I never thought the age limit varied between stores. I say this because I even implied that the legal age for consuming M rated games was 17, when I was attempting to rent the game, and they said "not at our store". But it seems to me that would be a really ignorant rule to implement, given that it would cause a decrease in rentals due to the fact that around here, most people that rent games and movies at their store are around my age. So if this rule is unique to their store only, it makes absolutely no since because all it seems to be doing is hurting their business.
A store is a private business, so they can set age limits on whatever merchandise they want. Hell, if Barnes and Noble wanted to, they could put an age limit on buying books("'Horny Vanessa's Vampire Murder Orgy' has sex in it. Think of the children!" they would say.). Krogers could put an age limit on bananas and cucumbers ("Have you seen www.hornyvanessaloves2playwithbananasandcucumbers.com? Outrageous!" they would say.). Okay, I've officially taken this example too far. Government age limits on products (booze, cigarettes, and video games) are the minimum age they can legally sell a product. There's no "maximum age you have to allow people to buy a product" for things. Yes, it sucks. I dislike more than you, and I'm 18. Whatever the reason, children do evil things these days. Columbine comes to mind, but there are probably a lot of smaller-scale events of violence. Parents, instead of reevaluating the kind of job they're doing, overlook their own mistakes and look for possible negative influences on their kids. Rap music, movies, and, above all, video games are popular targets. Their thought process must be something akin to: "My son just blew someone's head off with a shotgun." "Where did he go wrong?" "*gasp* You can shoot people in video games? That must be where he learned it." "Where did he get the game?" "I bought it for him. But I never would have bought it for him if I knew how violent it was!" Which is simply disgusting, in my opinion. If the title doesn't give it away ("What? 'Grand Theft Auto 3' is about breaking the law?"), there's a giant "M" on the two largest faces of the rectangular prism that makes up all game boxes today. On the front, due to spacing issues, is simply the letter. On the back, though, where they're allowed more room, the ESRB says why the game got its rating. Finally, this message is to all current parents, expecting parents, and people with functioning genitals who might become parents one day: If what you read the back of the box, and the description encompasses material you don't think your kids can handle, don't buy it for them. If you're not going to read the ****ing box, don't buy the game for your kid. If you're going to buy it anyway, don't blame the game when your kid does something that proves that he was unable to handle. If that paragraph appeared as an insert in all video game boxes (between the plastic of the case and the plastic of the shrink-wrap) no one would ever be able to blame video games for violence in teenagers ever again.
