Age Restrictions on games

ShooterSF

This country has a weird issue with ID. I work as a barman and have worked in a few places abroad. It's pretty standard to ask if you have any concern and most countries they just hand over and get on with it. No accusation or complaint. Here there's always a fuss and don't get me started on trying to train 18-20 year olds to ask for it. OP they're not accusing you of being underage and trying to get one over on them, they're just reassuring themselves and covering their asses.

idontlikefig

ShooterSF wrote: »

This country has a weird issue with ID. I work as a barman and have worked in a few places abroad. It's pretty standard to ask if you have any concern and most countries they just hand over and get on with it. No accusation or complaint. Here there's always a fuss and don't get me started on trying to train 18-20 year olds to ask for it. OP they're not accusing you of being underage and trying to get one over on them, they're just reassuring themselves and covering their asses.

I have no problem with handing over ID for stuff which is illegal to be sold to underage people, and I know it is not that they are accusing me of being underage. However with games I don't even think its illegal and if it is it is not policed or taken seriously in Ireland like alcohol/tobacco.
I know in my original post I was giving out about the staff of these places but now I completely understand they just don't want to get in trouble. However I don't understand why their bosses would make a big deal over not IDing a young adult for a game.
I'd understand somebody getting in trouble if they sold an 18+ game to an u14 looking person (possibility of angry parents) or if they didn't ID someone buying alcohol.

Potential-Monke

I just read up the law in the Video Recording Act and it's amendments, and sure enough I couldn't find any mention or inclusion of the word game. So technically, people selling games can probably get away with "breaking the law". However, i'd imagine that there could be an argument that games are included in it, as they are video games, and the word video is used quite often. They are, in essence, gaming videos. Would be a good legal battle.

Absolam

Potential-Monke wrote: »

I just read up the law in the Video Recording Act and it's amendments, and sure enough I couldn't find any mention or inclusion of the word game. So technically, people selling games can probably get away with "breaking the law". However, i'd imagine that there could be an argument that games are included in it, as they are video games, and the word video is used quite often. They are, in essence, gaming videos. Would be a good legal battle.

No, it wouldn't. Video games are not in essence gaming videos, they are video games. Video games are exempt for classification under the Act unless they are deemed prohibitable (which means unless the Classification Office feels they could be banned).

I remember my cousin had to buy Resident Evil for me, because I was far too young.

Game ended up scaring the absolute bejesus out of me.

gizmo

Robert ninja wrote: »

I think you're wrong in saying modern games are more violent and sexual. I'd say there's more toned down and censored approach than ever. Pretty sure RE5's camera moves away the scene to hide decapitation and anything so much as a woman in tears is has people screaming rape.

Meanwhile try pushing these scenes on today's sensitive tesco game-isle browsing mothers.

They're probably not the best examples to illustrate your point, Robert. Phantasmagoria received a huge amount of backlash on release due to the both the violence and rape scene within, was removed from sale in several US-based retailers and was even mentioned in US Senate hearings during a debate on the regulation of content in the video games industry as a whole. Harvester, the game which features the Mystery of Motherly Love scene above, also had that very scene removed in the European version of the game. Thankfully both games are available on both GoG and Steam in their uncensored state. As an aside, the backlash towards Night Trap, the FMV-based forerunner of these games was so severe it too featured in a series of US Senate hearings which indirectly led to the formation of the ESRB.

In terms of modern games, while RE5 may pan the camera away during those death scenes, Visceral had no such qualms showing Issac getting ripped to absolute shreds when he dies in the Dead Space series, Kratos' exploits in the various God of War games, most notably the execution of the various gods in the third entry, are pretty bloody brutal by anyone's standards and the executions in the last AvP game are still pretty much the most memorable thing about that entry in the series.

I mean, when you think EA once binned Thrill Kill before release because they didn't want to "publish such a senselessly violent game" and yet, the industry has now evolved to the point where the fatalities in said series look positively crude compared to what's on offer in the latest Mortal Kombat entry. Yes, there's arguably a tonal difference between the two titles, a distinction which also led to Hatred getting its AO-rating in the US and so much flack upon release of its trailer, but in terms of actual content in a released games nowadays, things aren't so bad all things considered.

The sensitive mother point gave me a chuckle though. I remember back when I was kid, sitting in a dentists waiting room, flicking through a copy of PC Zone. In it was a preview of Half Life with an accompanying promo shot of a scientist being shot in the ear with the MP5. The tagline under the screenshot was some joke about "bloody earmuffs" and I remember my mother giving out about how it was needlessly violent. I don't even want to imagine her reaction to me being prompted to press in both thumbsticks to gouge out Poseidon's eyes in GoW3. :pac:

idontlikefig

Absolutely everything on violent video games can be found on Youtube. So basically I there is no point of kids not being sold games when they can just look up gameplay on youtube. Most parents let their children have full access to the internet by the age of 12.
And even if somebody does not have access to the internet, their friends will and I remember when I was a kid I'd always play 18+ games in friends houses, as well as them showing me some gross stuff on the internet.

My point is that monitoring games is absolutely pointless if the internet is not being monitored.

If I was a parent I'd be much more concerned about my kids getting addicted to social media than them seeing some violence on youtube. Thats not to say I wouldn't have parent settings on their internet devices and monitor what games they play up until they are a teen.

13 year olds who have social lives do be exposed to violence/alcohol/drugs/sex so honestly I don't think them seeing sex/violence/drugs on a screen would be a priority. Well 13-16 is where most people would start being exposed to all that. Even if they were not involved they would still have friends in school who are involved and have nothing better to talk about.

I am just generalising, I don't want to go off topic by going in-detail on how I'd be parent.. IF I was a parent.

PetKing

idontlikefig wrote: »

Absolutely everything on violent video games can be found on Youtube. So basically I there is no point of kids not being sold games when they can just look up gameplay on youtube. Most parents let their children have full access to the internet by the age of 12.
And even if somebody does not have access to the internet, their friends will and I remember when I was a kid I'd always play 18+ games in friends houses, as well as them showing me some gross stuff on the internet.

My point is that monitoring games is absolutely pointless if the internet is not being monitored.

If I was a parent I'd be much more concerned about my kids getting addicted to social media than them seeing some violence on youtube. Thats not to say I wouldn't have parent settings on their internet devices and monitor what games they play up until they are a teen.

13 year olds who have social lives do be exposed to violence/alcohol/drugs/sex so honestly I don't think them seeing sex/violence/drugs on a screen would be a priority. Well 13-16 is where most people would start being exposed to all that. Even if they were not involved they would still have friends in school who are involved and have nothing better to talk about.

I am just generalising, I don't want to go off topic by going in-detail on how I'd be parent.. IF I was a parent.

I worked in GameStop as an assistant manager back circa 2002/2003, and had my fair share of dealings with parents of children buying games not rated for them. More often than not, the parent was up in my face because little Johnny couldn't buy the latest GTA from me but all his friends had it. More often than not, parents hadn't a clue about the content of the game, and came in complaining to me because their child came home roaring.

Retailers caught selling 18+ games to minors can be fined massively for starters, and with just cause.

IMO just because you you can take video game medium and dance around the letter of the law, it's not ok to sell these games to children.

You seem to take the attitude of throwing caution to the wind with regards protecting children from this content, that they will get it elsewhere. No doubt they will, if they really wanted to, but that's no reason to tear down guidelines set in place to protect underage people, as well as retailers, from the consequences of selling these games. Somebody has to stand their ground and say what is ok and what's not, and I'm all for that. You'd hardly purchase pornography DVD's from your local adult store, and fire them on in the living room for the kids thinking 'sure they'll only get it online anyway'. We shouldn't be facilitating this, end of.

You shouldn't operate on the assumption that every 13 year old has been exposed to sex/drugs/alcohol/violence by that age. Any responsible parent would attempt to control teenagers introductions to these things, and put them in proper context.

Like yourself, I've seen x y & z by the time I was 13/14, and sure what harm ha?! It can do harm, and can leave a lasting impression on a hugely impressionable age group, be it glamorising hard core sex, making drugs cool, or normalising exposure to violence.

LunarSea

OP's attitude of "they'll see it at some point anyway" is ironically, very immature.

lertsnim

Show them your ID and carry on with your life. You'd swear they were doing something invasive the way you are going on.

idontlikefig

I corrected myself already saying I was wrong and staff IDing people is just to avoid trouble with their boss. And there is no fully clear law regarding this topic, if there is link me. Citizensinfo only has stuff on DVD/video, then on wiki it says PEGI is not enforced in Ireland. So there is no point on repeating "companys will get fined". So from a law perspective it is unclear.

Then from a moral perspective I am not saying sell 18+ games to children, I am just talking about IDing people, c'mon do people really think the maturity differs much between a 16 and 18 year old ?

"they'll see it at some point anyway" is not my attitude regarding this topic. I just brought up the internet because it hasn't been brought up already, and it has all content which any game/movie would have. People seem very keen on saying that games should be 18+ and it should be enforced to the same extent as alcohol, yet it would be a different story depriving people from the internet until they are 18.

Absolam

I think the Irish Film Classification Office is reasonably clear about it:

Does IFCO classify video games?
Under the Video Recordings Act 1989 video games are exempt from classification unless they are deemed prohibitable under section 3 (1) of the Act.

Ireland, along with 15 other European countries, is a member of PEGI, an organization which produces age ratings for video games. You can learn more about this system at www.pegi.info

gizmo

idontlikefig wrote: »

Then from a moral perspective I am not saying sell 18+ games to children, I am just talking about IDing people, c'mon do people really think the maturity differs much between a 16 and 18 year old ?

"they'll see it at some point anyway" is not my attitude regarding this topic. I just brought up the internet because it hasn't been brought up already, and it has all content which any game/movie would have. People seem very keen on saying that games should be 18+ and it should be enforced to the same extent as alcohol, yet it would be a different story depriving people from the internet until they are 18.

I'm confused about your stance here, OP. Are you basically saying that at 16, people are mature enough to deal with content which has traditionally been rated as 18+?

idontlikefig

Absolam wrote: »

I think the Irish Film Classification Office is reasonably clear about it:

Does IFCO classify video games?
Under the Video Recordings Act 1989 video games are exempt from classification unless they are deemed prohibitable under section 3 (1) of the Act.

Ireland, along with 15 other European countries, is a member of PEGI, an organization which produces age ratings for video games. You can learn more about this system at www.pegi.info

Yes, we are a member of PEGI. However the Irish law does not have anything saying it is illegal to sell games to minors. The other members of PEGI do have a law which says it is. Ireland does have a law regarding film but nothing on games so I believe

Robert ninja

PetKing wrote: »

Like yourself, I've seen x y & z by the time I was 13/14, and sure what harm ha?! It can do harm, and can leave a lasting impression on a hugely impressionable age group, be it glamorising hard core sex, making drugs cool, or normalising exposure to violence.

So the whole games make people violent malarkey. :rolleyes:

Absolam

idontlikefig wrote: »

Yes, we are a member of PEGI. However the Irish law does not have anything saying it is illegal to sell games to minors. The other members of PEGI do have a law which says it is. Ireland does have a law regarding film but nothing on games so I believe

It's not illegal. And retailers realise as long as they enforce a voluntary system, it won't be made illegal, and they'll never need to worry about being fined for breaking the law.

idontlikefig

gizmo wrote: »

I'm confused about your stance here, OP. Are you basically saying that at 16, people are mature enough to deal with content which has traditionally been rated as 18+?

That is not the point but yes I do think that. However, I am not suggesting that they lower the ratings to 16.
I just do not think it is necessary for places such as Argos/Gamestop to ID people to make sure they are over 18. Since there is no Irish law stating its illegal to sell video games to minors there is no need to super strict. Places say to me "we can ask for ID for anybody who looks under 21", however, I think they should use their own judgement and only ask for ID if they look quite young, just to prevent any trouble with angry parents.

At the end of the day, nothing is going to happen if the person is under 18 by a small bit. If the person is 14 or under then it might not look good on the seller, and worst case scenario a parent will come in complaining.

And please... before you quote me saying "they'll get fined" please give me evidence, even if there was ever some controversial case send a link for a news article or something. I'm interested and will be persuaded once I see something solid.

gizmo

idontlikefig wrote: »

That is not the point but yes I do think that. However, I am not suggesting that they lower the ratings to 16.
I just do not think it is necessary for places such as Argos/Gamestop to ID people to make sure they are over 18. Since there is no Irish law stating its illegal to sell video games to minors there is no need to super strict. Places say to me "we can ask for ID for anybody who looks under 21", however, I think they should use their own judgement and only ask for ID if they look quite young, just to prevent any trouble with angry parents.

At the end of the day, nothing is going to happen if the person is under 18 by a small bit. If the person is 14 or under then it might not look good on the seller, and worst case scenario a parent will come in complaining.

Out of curiosity then, if you do think that then why not lower the rating to 16?

Rorok

The rating system is a bit off though, oh murder some people, grand sure 16. Mention s€X and drugs once? 18s only.

raze_them_all_

Jesus christ its only checking for id not an anal probe

PetKing

Robert ninja wrote: »

So the whole games make people violent malarkey. :rolleyes:

You're making that link, not me. Graphic violence can leave horrible mental scars on children's psyche. I'm not making the leap to say they become violent, as a result of exposure.

PetKing

raze_them_all_ wrote:

Jesus christ its only checking for id not an anal probe

I bought South Park: The Stick Of Truth from an online Canadian retailer so I could enjoy the anal probe!

kunst nugget

I'm 38 with a head full of grey hair and face that's starting to respond much more strongly to gravity than it did before and I'm still asked if I'm over 18 when buying alcohol in Aldi and Lidl. How I'm able to make it through the day with the grave offense it causes me I'll never know…

um7y1h83ge06nx

In order to protect our hobby retailers have to be careful with regards ID.

Games have been demonized many times before, if the industry shows it is trying it's best to enforce age ratings then we are less likely to see censorship and bans on games.

riclad

I Heard some 65 year old bloke went into an off license in the usa ,to buy beer
they asked him for id to show he,s over 21 .
I have bought games since the 90, s i cant remember being asked for an id once.usually buy games in game or gamestop .
There,s a sign id required to buy beer in aldi.
i don,t normally carry id with me every day,
and not everyone has a driving license .
maybe aldi just ask everyone who buys beer for id.
i think most games are rated t for teen apart from games like gta .

sniper_samurai

riclad wrote: »

I Heard some 65 year old bloke went into an off license in the usa ,to buy beer
they asked him for id to show he,s over 21 .
I have bought games since the 90, s i cant remember being asked for an id once.usually buy games in game or gamestop .
There,s a sign id required to buy beer in aldi.
i don,t normally carry id with me every day,
and not everyone has a driving license .
maybe aldi just ask everyone who buys beer for id.
i think most games are rated t for teen apart from games like gta .

Not unusual for the states. Heard from friends who asked
about stuff like that and was told that the person could've been wearing a disguise.

ItsHoggie

Remember walking into Game one day when I was around 19 and tried to buy Red Dead Redemption and some other game, got asked for id so I showed my passport but got blown out because it out out of date, felt like a right tit walking away after being stuck in the que for about 20 mins.

Then my 16 yo brother went into GameStop the next day and got served not a bother for the same game :pac:

riclad

Its like film,s ,violence is ok, you can kill 100s of enemys as in a an fps games and get a teen rating.
Any depiction of sex or drug use will likely get the game an 18 rating .
Uptil 2 years ago there was just kids or a teen rating for games in australia ,
so many games were banned there .
now theres an 18 rating there .
I,ve never seen anyone being asked for id in a game shop.

Kirby

PetKing wrote: »

You're making that link, not me. Graphic violence can leave horrible mental scars on children's psyche. I'm not making the leap to say they become violent, as a result of exposure.

Yes you are. There is no scientific link between exposure to violent games and violent acts perpetrated by the person. None. Zilch. Nada. Not a one. So you are making a massive, grand canyon style leap in your analysis.

Rorok

I saw a research thing awhile ago, it said people who are violent most likely play video games violently. That was their point arguing against video games, violent people play them violently.