Cheerilee wrote I think that the rules are fine as they are. As long as their parents buy the games, and agree to let them play, why should we disagree?

NeonFlux wrote Well its not necessarily about the age, its the person. Some people cant handle the maturity needed to play games like that have violence and fighting an guns and such. It could lead to a person doing something like that in real life, like i said earlier depenending on their maturity. If they are grown up enough and know what theyre doing, they do it for fun. Who knows why others do it, and what they WILL do.

Kylan wrote For Christmas this year, my little 7 year old brother got an Xbox 360.

Now with his Xbox he didnt get a 3+ or 7+, he got Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 and Halo Reach, both these in the UK being rated 18+ and 16+ respectivly.

Now I was only allowed to start playing games rated 16-18+ when I was 14 years old, which was around 2 years ago now. However my little brother is playing these at half the age I was.

But do you know why?

You could blame me I guess. But you could also blame the media. You could blame friends. But its to do with influences.

At the end of the day different kids are effected in different ways to others. Some may be "distrubed" by these games, or others (like my little bro) may shrug off the fact that he just blew someone up and see it all as a game. Its all to do with the individual.

The point im trying to make here is that this 18+ game doesnt make my little bro more violent or want to kill people, so really the rating doesnt really apply to him anyway.

So making the rules stricter would help in some aspects yes, and it would deffinatly benifit, but in other cases no. It would make it harder for under-aged games to get there hands on games and go on un-rated online experiences, which would effect them negatively, but there will still be ways for them to do so, and for now we can just stick with what we have.

Pros and Cons to boths sides I think, but for now stick with what we have