Is MTW2's 16+ age rating justified?

[Tboy]

Well, Dell19, have you heard about the 6 year old in the UK who ordered a car on Ebay? The parents managed to get it reversed, but always remember: log out after you order your products.

 

[ChrisEvans]

I think their is some confusion over censorship and age restriction. I agree that an adult may watch whatever filth they want, so long as the making of the film/media does not infringe upon people's rights. For example, porn involving concenting adults is ok, child porn or snuff is not. But it isn't so much the viewing that is wrong, but it's the making of the film that is wrong. However, age restriction is a diffrent issue. Age restriction is important, not because it is seriously belived that age-restricted media may disturb a young mind, but because it give parents the control over, and more importantly the knowlege of, what their child is exposed to.

I think it is also important to understand that it isn't a crime for an underage person to view age-restricted media, only that it is crime for an underage person to buy age-restricted media. If a parent buys an age-restricted item for their child then their is no problem since the parent has given consent that their child may be exposed to the item in question. However, it would not be right for a child to buy potentially inappopriate material without their parents consent. The only way of achiving this is to deny underage persons at the point of sale. Consider this within the context of alcohol, is it wrong for a parent to allow their child a glass of wine at Christmas? Probably not since the parent is able to control the amount alcohol consumed and is able to educate the child at the same time. On the other hand, is it right that a child may buy a bottle of cider and get drunk at the park? Obviously not.

Medieval Total War II depicts scenes of violence and even contains subtle refrences to rape. This firmly places MTW2 into the 16+ catagory. However, I do not think it is wrong that an under 16 year old plays this game, so long as they have their parents consent. I know that I would be quite happy for my child to play this game, however, I would not be happy for them to play it without my knowledge. This is because it would be my duty to ensure that the child is suffuciently educated to see the game from a proper historical perspective. Armed with education and knowledge, thier is really nothing a child shouldn't be exposed to, I don't see the point of shielding children from the darker side reality, especially history, however it is essential that parents are aware of what their child is exposed to so that the child can be given proper guidence by their parent or guardian. Without age-restriction this could not happen.

 

[Kal'thzar]

"This voice is from God, he must be kept close to me...."

Choir boy, on my 27 year old Cardinal :|

 

[Sashie VII]

I think their is some confusion over censorship and age restriction. I agree that an adult may watch whatever filth they want, so long as the making of the film/media does not infringe upon people's rights. For example, porn involving concenting adults is ok, child porn or snuff is not. But it isn't so much the viewing that is wrong, but it's the making of the film that is wrong. However, age restriction is a diffrent issue. Age restriction is important, not because it is seriously belived that age-restricted media may disturb a young mind, but because it give parents the control over, and more importantly the knowlege of, what their child is exposed to.

I think it is also important to understand that it isn't a crime for an underage person to view age-restricted media, only that it is crime for an underage person to buy age-restricted media. If a parent buys an age-restricted item for their child then their is no problem since the parent has given consent that their child may be exposed to the item in question. However, it would not be right for a child to buy potentially inappopriate material without their parents consent. The only way of achiving this is to deny underage persons at the point of sale. Consider this within the context of alcohol, is it wrong for a parent to allow their child a glass of wine at Christmas? Probably not since the parent is able to control the amount alcohol consumed and is able to educate the child at the same time. On the other hand, is it right that a child may buy a bottle of cider and get drunk at the park? Obviously not.

Medieval Total War II depicts scenes of violence and even contains subtle refrences to rape. This firmly places MTW2 into the 16+ catagory. However, I do not think it is wrong that an under 16 year old plays this game, so long as they have their parents consent. I know that I would be quite happy for my child to play this game, however, I would not be happy for them to play it without my knowledge. This is because it would be my duty to ensure that the child is suffuciently educated to see the game from a proper historical perspective. Armed with education and knowledge, thier is really nothing a child shouldn't be exposed to, I don't see the point of shielding children from the darker side reality, especially history, however it is essential that parents are aware of what their child is exposed to so that the child can be given proper guidence by their parent or guardian. Without age-restriction this could not happen.

Convinced me to vote yes. Good Points.

 

[salty mud]

I think its aged 16 because of the language! The English generals are quite potty-mouthed.

 

[salty mud]

I think their is some confusion over censorship and age restriction. I agree that an adult may watch whatever filth they want, so long as the making of the film/media does not infringe upon people's rights. For example, porn involving concenting adults is ok, child porn or snuff is not. But it isn't so much the viewing that is wrong, but it's the making of the film that is wrong. However, age restriction is a diffrent issue. Age restriction is important, not because it is seriously belived that age-restricted media may disturb a young mind, but because it give parents the control over, and more importantly the knowlege of, what their child is exposed to.

I think it is also important to understand that it isn't a crime for an underage person to view age-restricted media, only that it is crime for an underage person to buy age-restricted media. If a parent buys an age-restricted item for their child then their is no problem since the parent has given consent that their child may be exposed to the item in question. However, it would not be right for a child to buy potentially inappopriate material without their parents consent. The only way of achiving this is to deny underage persons at the point of sale. Consider this within the context of alcohol, is it wrong for a parent to allow their child a glass of wine at Christmas? Probably not since the parent is able to control the amount alcohol consumed and is able to educate the child at the same time. On the other hand, is it right that a child may buy a bottle of cider and get drunk at the park? Obviously not.

Medieval Total War II depicts scenes of violence and even contains subtle refrences to rape. This firmly places MTW2 into the 16+ catagory. However, I do not think it is wrong that an under 16 year old plays this game, so long as they have their parents consent. I know that I would be quite happy for my child to play this game, however, I would not be happy for them to play it without my knowledge. This is because it would be my duty to ensure that the child is suffuciently educated to see the game from a proper historical perspective. Armed with education and knowledge, thier is really nothing a child shouldn't be exposed to, I don't see the point of shielding children from the darker side reality, especially history, however it is essential that parents are aware of what their child is exposed to so that the child can be given proper guidence by their parent or guardian. Without age-restriction this could not happen.

What bull. Where is the rape? You waffle on about nothing relavent to the topic.

 

[Maniacal]

They will still get the game anyways, ratings are GUIDELINES and should REMAIN so. There are and always will be a few kids who maybe should have used the guide as a rule but that's like 1% or less. Same with 18+ stuff is often watched by 14+ year olds.

 

[bugrit]

I think their is some confusion over censorship and age restriction. I agree that an adult may watch whatever filth they want, so long as the making of the film/media does not infringe upon people's rights. For example, porn involving concenting adults is ok, child porn or snuff is not. But it isn't so much the viewing that is wrong, but it's the making of the film that is wrong. However, age restriction is a diffrent issue. Age restriction is important, not because it is seriously belived that age-restricted media may disturb a young mind, but because it give parents the control over, and more importantly the knowlege of, what their child is exposed to.

I think it is also important to understand that it isn't a crime for an underage person to view age-restricted media, only that it is crime for an underage person to buy age-restricted media. If a parent buys an age-restricted item for their child then their is no problem since the parent has given consent that their child may be exposed to the item in question. However, it would not be right for a child to buy potentially inappopriate material without their parents consent. The only way of achiving this is to deny underage persons at the point of sale. Consider this within the context of alcohol, is it wrong for a parent to allow their child a glass of wine at Christmas? Probably not since the parent is able to control the amount alcohol consumed and is able to educate the child at the same time. On the other hand, is it right that a child may buy a bottle of cider and get drunk at the park? Obviously not.

Medieval Total War II depicts scenes of violence and even contains subtle refrences to rape. This firmly places MTW2 into the 16+ catagory. However, I do not think it is wrong that an under 16 year old plays this game, so long as they have their parents consent. I know that I would be quite happy for my child to play this game, however, I would not be happy for them to play it without my knowledge. This is because it would be my duty to ensure that the child is suffuciently educated to see the game from a proper historical perspective. Armed with education and knowledge, thier is really nothing a child shouldn't be exposed to, I don't see the point of shielding children from the darker side reality, especially history, however it is essential that parents are aware of what their child is exposed to so that the child can be given proper guidence by their parent or guardian. Without age-restriction this could not happen.

A coherent and well-reasoned post.

So, little ones, the guidelines aren't there for you to accept or deny. They are there to help your parents decide whether or not to let you have what you have been nagging them to buy for you.

One day, you might get to decide for your own children and I have a feeling that your opinions then will be very different from what they are right now.

But that's just the way of the world.

 

[R.B.]

Well, considering that it shows people getting chopped, stabbed, and a whole other array of nastiness, the rating seems to fit teen(16 could be a bit overreacting, though). To ChrisEvans: Never seen referances to the word at the end of the first sentance of the third paragraph; care to explain?

 

[StarWorms]

People go way over the top these days, wrapping up children in bubble wrap. It's no more than children learn in history class. There's nothing disturbing in the game. However people have probably decided that because people get killed in the battles, it must be banned for children.

They are advisory age limits though. Anyone under 16 can legally buy the game themselves (or at least under UK law). Only a proper certificate on a game (PG, 12A, 15, 18) actually make it illegal to buy if you are below that age.

16 is utterly ridiculous though. I could understand 12 but even that is pushing the boat.

 

[bugrit]

Well, considering that it shows people getting chopped, stabbed, and a whole other array of nastiness, the rating seems to fit teen(16 could be a bit overreacting, though).

The action can be decidedly brutal when viewed close up and I understand that M2TW has intoduced blood and progressive "wear and tear" for added realism.

To ChrisEvans: Never seen referances to the word at the end of the first sentance of the third paragraph; care to explain?

To be fair, CE did say "...subtle references to..."

 

[Macha]

I have M2TW and haven't seen any blood or scars in it yet but i only do about 1 in 10 of the battles

 

[bugrit]

I have M2TW and haven't seen any blood or scars in it yet but i only do about 1 in 10 of the battles

I don't know where I got the idea about blood and scars but I know I read it somewhere. Have you watched the action in close-up?

 

[jeff744]

i've seen the blod, you just have to zoom in full and look at the battlefields

 

[Soniku]

I'm against age reccomendations altogether once a more logical one can be put into place, they only serve to mislead. I think a selection of rateings would work much better. Some parents are very liberal about violence their children see, but can't stand the slightest hint of sexual innuendo. I know one person who will play anything... but won't accept any game with foul language in it.

It would be a lot easier to do what they do with movies sometimes, have seperate rateings for things like violence, sex, swearing and so on.

After all, age is only a very rough guideline. I know some 13 year olds who are far, far more responsible than me, and some adults I would never allow to touch a baseball bat because their just that immature.

 

[Tboy]

I'm against age reccomendations altogether once a more logical one can be put into place, they only serve to mislead. I think a selection of rateings would work much better. Some parents are very liberal about violence their children see, but can't stand the slightest hint of sexual innuendo. I know one person who will play anything... but won't accept any game with foul language in it.

It would be a lot easier to do what they do with movies sometimes, have seperate rateings for things like violence, sex, swearing and so on.

After all, age is only a very rough guideline. I know some 13 year olds who are far, far more responsible than me, and some adults I would never allow to touch a baseball bat because their just that immature.

There is that sort of system in the UK for games: look on the back, and next to the age rating, there's some symbols representing violence, bad language, sexual references e.t.c.

 

[tommyommy]

I don't think it should have a rating at all, apart from 11+ (or even younger). This is because it is not disturbing, there's not that much blood and anyone under the age of 10 probably wouldn't understand it or know how to play it.
So, no, there should not be an age restriction of 16.
tommyommy

 

[salty mud]

As someone previously said, in the UK at least under 16's can buy it. The PEGI ratings are advice for parents, while BBFC are official and you must be the correct age to purchase the game. 16+ is ridiculous. I wish they would sometimes give info as to why it acquired such a rating.