Violent Video Games: Should Kids Be Able to Buy Them?

Reader Comments
Back to article

I wonder if there's some bias here. That is the only way I can come up with an explanation as to how such a poorly written poll could end up here.

Dork of CA 3:11PM May 13, 2010

Not only is this pool asking the wrong question, but the question it is asking is worded badly enough to cause confusion when answering. Both choices seem to agree with the argument, as in "Yes, kids should not be sold violent video games" and "No, kids should not be sold violent video games," both of which mean the same thing. I'm sure I was not the only one confused by this, and someone casting a hasty vote may have selected the wrong choice. In short, your results may be skewed. In answering the question myself I assumed that selecting "No" implied the double negative answer of "No, kids should NOT not be sold violent video games." Hopefully, I interpreted the poll correctly. However, that brings me to my other point, you are asking the wrong question.
The poll mentions the Supreme Court's review of a California law which will legally penalize the sale of violent video games to a minor, yet the poll does not ask anything about the legal issue in question, but instead it ask about kids being sold violent games in general. I am of two minds on the issue. No, I do not think that minors should be sold Mature rated games without the consent of their parents. However, I do not believe that the government should make any laws trying to enforce the sale of games according to their ratings. Currently the video game industry is self regulating, with most retailers already refusing to sell Mature rated games to minors. I agree with this type of self regulation and believe that any additional government regulation is not only unnecessary but could ultimately end up infringing on our rights. The generality of the poll makes it hard for me and others who think like me to answer this question honestly, as we would not want a vote in favor of the general sentiment of not allowing kids to buy violent games on their own, without a parent present, to me misconstrued as support for the California law in question or other laws similar to it.

J. Erazo of CA 2:55PM May 13, 2010

The question is not whether or not violent video games should be sold to children, but whether or not the sale of video games should in any way be *legally* regulated.
If I had children, I would not want them to play some of the games I've played until they were old enough to fully appreciate the distinction between fantasy and reality. I'd treat movies no differently, deciding from film to film what was appropriate. In order to help parents make these decisions, the MPAA (for movies) and the ESRB (for games) provide age-related ratings accompanied by short descriptions of the content that justifies a given rating.
I feel that the force of these ratings systems is lost on many of the proponents of legal regulation. Developers and publishers will not make or release a game that will not receive a marketable rating, and no retailers will sell a game that receives no rating or an Adults Only rating from the ESRB. (Unrated games do get made and distributed on the Internet, usually directly by developers, but they are uncommon and do not represent any significant portion of entertainment software revenues.)
The debate is not about "should minors be able to buy violent video games." According to the policies of all major (and the vast majority of minor) video game retailers, they already cannot. The question is about whether or not the government should pass laws imposing penalties for the entertainment software equivalent of kids sneaking into R-rated movies, and the answer is no, they should not. It is not the government's job, it runs against the Bill of Rights, it is unnecessary, and it stands to set a dangerous and harmful precedent.
I'm very disappointed in you, USN&WR, for the incredibly off-base and misleading survey. It misses the point entirely, and does so in such a way as to make any response to the survey question supportive of legal regulation.

Adam O. of IL 11:26AM May 13, 2010

This double negative is either written by a moron or purposely made to skew the results. Either way it is really terrible. What a useless poll. This is the kind of thing that will get false results that will then be used by the media for sensationalism. Sad.
I'm a game designer, and though I don't always agree with every game's philosophy or content, I certainly don't want to see my games censored and pigeonholed. But this ridiculous poll will not help to keep games free of unwanted censorship, it will just muddy the water further I refuse to take part in such a terrible and worthless poll.

John Phillips of CA 10:09AM May 13, 2010

This may sound silly but that is why things like the ESRB are for. A rating system that is outside the box that tells people what the points of conflict or interest are part of the game. Like viewing a movie you look at the rating first to see what is right for the kid. Just look at Gamestop those guys behind the counter are trained to ask for I.D. on "M" rated games because "Ultra Violent Games" get the "M" rating and so unless the "Minor" mentioned in the article is "18" years of age they cant get the "Ultra Violent Game" that is being commented on. All that these people need is to have all other retail stores who sell video games just to follow the ESRB. Gamestop was like the only retailer to receive a score of having 80% of there individuals following the ESRB. Others retail stores like Best Buy got 40%. We have rules that have been in place for a long time it is just many older adults may not know the existence of such rules but they have been here for a while and the continue to change a rise to gauge and inform others as accurately as possible.

Brian of FL 9:59AM May 13, 2010

Seriously, guys? Way to skew results.

Grammar Guy 9:33AM May 13, 2010

I agree with alot of things that are said in these comments and disagree with more.
e.x. one person says that a 5 year old shouldn't play a violent video game but his/her child of the age 16 can because as that child's parent he/she knows her's/his child is responsible enough.
Well I have a personal question to ask those who think that.
Do any of you know everyone elses children? Because I'm sure that all of you don't know 100% of children on this world so who are you'll to say that my child or anyone elses child is not responsible enough for a violent video game.
That's all I have to say why don't you'll think about that.

Chris of TX 8:55AM May 13, 2010

The double negative in the poll question makes it very hard to choose a simple YES or NO answer. So, I will try to address it here.
I do not believe that a law banning the sale of a violent game to a minor is neccessary.
This in no way means that I feel a five year old should be playing a game with graphic depictions of extreme violence. I think we can all agree that at a certain age, children just aren't ready for such material. On the other hand, I see no problem with my sixteen year old (still a minor by law), playing the exact same game. Because as his parent, I know him, and I know that he is mature enough to handle it.
Ultimately, it is the decision of the parent(s) to decide what their child can and cannot play. There is no need to waste taxpayer money attempting to enforce a ban on video game sales when game stores already self regulate this material.
I believe this is simply an attempt by politicians, desperate to raise some funds, to avoid the dreaded "[insert name here] raised taxes" label. "Fought to protect our children from violence" however, that always looks good in commercials.

Teresa of CA 5:01AM May 13, 2010

To be honest I feel its up to the parents. If they feel their child is mature enough to handle the concepts of the game without making it feel or try to make it real. For Example, I grew up in the golden age of the playstation one classics. Resident Evil, Parasite Eve, Final Fantasy 7. There's nothing wrong with me today, except I have a short temper, but that's from my dad. I think people are looking to put blame on something else than themselves. If you were somehow able to ban sales to a minor from mature content you know how much other mature content there is to ban? Basically all types of media, including the news. Some parents out there are really just pointing the blame on someone else so they look like a good parent. As of now i hold a great job, am taking classes in computer programming and I owe thanks to the video game industry, for giving me a ideal job in which I can do something that I love.

Matthew Spangler of PA 2:44AM May 13, 2010

Nice job spinning the poll to being absolutely worthless:
If I say "no" then I'm automatically for children buying and playing mature rated games w/o parental concent (which I'm not).
If I say "yes" I'm essentially promoting this ridiculous ban on mature video games (which I'm not).
The ESRB exists for a reason and all stores that I'm aware of enforce the ratings system. I've heard plenty of requests for ID when younger people have attempted to buy an M rated video game. The system works as-is and no governmental intervention is needed to override what is essentially the parents job to decide what content is appropriate for their children.

Brian of CA 8:12PM May 12, 2010