Great single player, horrible multiplayer.

Depends on the age and maturity of the child...at 10 I was already grown and exposed to all sorts of ugly truths of life but the next 10 year old may not be ready or mentally/emotionally able to handle the same thing; ditto for video games.

Depends on the content in the game to me. For example, I'd let anyone play games in The Elder Scrolls series cause those games include violence, alcohol, and maybe a curse word here or there. The violence isn't even that graphic.

Now GTA, I wouldn't let anyone under the age play that game. Kids these days seem to want to play the Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed, Battlefield, whatever kind of games. When I was younger I wanted Zelda, Mario, Pokemon, basically anything by Nintendo. At least that's how it looks to me.

Depends on the content, games like Call of Duty won't have much that should be alarming and in some way might encourage kid to peruse a career in the military, but if the game has a lot of sixual or drug related content in it then no. Not only that but it's illegal to sale a M rating game to a minor anyway, you can sell it to the parents and they can give it to the kid but you can't sell it to the kid directly.

In general terms, I'd agree with this.

If only because of the number of clueless idiots I've seen blithely ignoring the great big 18 in the red circle when buying a videogame for their kid.

Are there kids mature enough to play games rated above their age? Certainly. When I was a kid the rule I was set was simple; one rating above my age.

But for every kid judged mature enough by their parents, there's a couple of dozen being given the games like a modern equivalent of a pacifier or something.

Arbitrary age restrictions make no sense on an individual basis. It is up to the parent to decide if their child is mature and ready for the content of any given game or other item their child has.

Whether or not they should be allowed to play such games depends on a number of factors:

Content - gun/weapon use, language, sixual/drug references/acts, etc.

Disposition of "child" in question - are they more likely to A.) emulate video game behavior, or B.) use video games as an outlet for otherwise unacceptable behavior?

Age of "child" in question - regardless of the above factors, certain things are not appropriate for certain ages (in my opinion).

Those sorts of things need to be taken into account. As Callidus Thorn said, there are kids mature enough to play games rated above their age. The ratings are there to provide an idea of the content included, not to say "You can't play this until you're X years of age".

My parents didn't mind me playing Mortal Kombat as a kid. I make a living uppercutting peoples' heads off and nobody thinks any different of me.

I have a 35 year old stepson that should not be allowed to play pac man!

I think it's dependant on the game. I believe that violence in most games shouldn't pose an 18 rating, but in others it should. The torture in GTA is probably a but much, but for games like COD or Assassins Creed, where there is less gore than you would find in Watership Down, no problem. These games look and feel like movies, and unless your child already has issues, these games won't have an impact on them. I grew up with Mortal Kombat and Carmageddon and I dont go out killing. Far more disturbing was, say, watching the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre (specifically the bit where the guy picked up the girl and put her, via her back, onto the meat hook, with her left trying to pull herself off it but her hands slipping due to the blood... I watched that nearly 2 decades ago, only once, and I still remember that scene vividly, which I think is telling), and yet that carries the same rating as many games that, by my reckoning, will have far less of an impact on a young persons mind. Hell, even today I find some of that sort of stuff difficult to watch.

M is for mature, and some kids are more mature than others.. Some M games aren't that 'violent'; rather just deal with sensitive subjects that a mature human could probably handle and might actually better them as a person rather than the contrary. My answer; it depends on the game.

I've met many 12 year olds more mature than fully grown advlts

Generally, video games are much more likely to become an addiction when introduced in childhood. The same is true for a lot of hobbies.

Video games are not the most positive hobby to get into either.

Positives

-Cheap compared to other hobbies

-increases planning skills

-increased hand eye coordination

-Wide variety of entertainment types (different gaming genres)

-Good way to let loose.

Negatives

-It tends to lead to very little exercise, so they will more than likely be physically stunted to some degree if they get consumed by their hobby.

-It seems designed to breed thoughtlessness and laziness. For the most part. You don't really think about Mario, you just play. Same with CoD.

-Social interactions tend to plummet. (although that will get less common in the future as games are becoming an increasingly popular thing now and for the last decade or so, especially in young kids. However, the major popular games are CoD, Mario, Halo, etc etc...the more niche games will still probably get ostracized to some degree. RPGs and RTSs are for nerds, etc etc.)

-A lot of games rely on power fantasies which can be pretty bad in young kids, as they already are at the height of their ego centrism.

-Most games are worthless for anything other than gameplay and a cheap distraction. Their time could be spent on much more productive things that might actually help them in their future. Gaming isn't likely to do anything for you at all. Even if you become professional, it isn't exactly know as happy profession. Overworked and underpaid.

-Online components should be obvious when it comes to young kids.

-It can easily become addicting and can cause major issues in a family unit. Saw it many times. Even with a very competent parent involved.

[censored]...I should just do a 'postives vs negatives to gaming' thread. I am quite convinced it would firmly be placed in the negatives tbh.

I haven't. I've met maybe one and that was just maturity in certain areas. Seriously though, how were they more mature than fully grown advlts?

On the other hand. Nearly every advlt I have met has been more mature than a twelve year old.

1. True, but those that use gaming as their primary hobby tend to be those to whom physical activity isn't particularly appealing in the first place. The Chess Club, not the Lacrosse team.

2. That ignores a lot of actively thoughtful games. Even old FPS games were practically puzzle mazes. Myst-types, adventure games, strategy games, and puzzle games all involved problem solving and abstract thinking. Using Mario and CoD is (wink, wink) disingenuous because those sort of games are about reaction and speed rather than thinking about the game.

3. Like #1, chicken or egg?

4. I agree. This has largely become a problem recently, as genuine difficulty has become almost anathema in the games industry. We go away from this "everyone wins" mentally and have even kids games present a challenge, not that big a problem.

5. True, but we always do things that don't pay off. Does the captain of the football team in high school stands a huge chance of that NFL payoff? Nope. Besides, video games aren't about that. They're about relaxing. It's about striking a balance. One of the worst things you can do to a kid is make them think they have to working all of the time.

6. Absolutely. I don't think kids should be online at all, without supervision.

7. Like most addictions, this has as much to do with the addict as the drug. If a kid has no other outlet, then they're liable to become addicted. Once again, this has to do with providing other things to do.

Overall, most of these are about video games overall rather than mature rated games.

Guess I should preface this a bit. I am mostly playing Devil's Advocate.

1. Not sure if tend is the right word. It gets kind of hard to guess where the beginning starts for that appeal. Regardless of appeal, being active is good. Being inactive is bad. There is no getting around that. For your own health and even happiness, as exercise is incredibly helpful for regulating your mood and stress, people should be encouraged to exercise. Video games encourage the opposite.

2. Most of the actively thought out games are played by a minority. Unfortunately. However there is nothing wrong with thoughtless games, it is just a problem that they are the most popular. Thus the most likely to be played by your kids as other kids are playing them.

3. Doesn't really matter. Either it stunts the growth of social skills or it makes someone with bad social skills worse. Connections are the number one way to move ahead and make a better life for yourself, whatever you deem that to be. Social skills are critical for that.

4. Except that isn't what is selling well. Maybe the trend would change, but nothing really indicates it will. More like there is an increased split between accessible and spoon flies into your mouth accessible. Highly difficult games and games that play to the player's ego are not separate things. They can go hand in hand. It is the playing to the ego that is the issue, not the difficulty of the game perse. Although a difficult game is more likely to not pander to your ego, at least not the shallowest portion. Difficult games DO pander to your ego after all, just the part that appreciates overcoming challenge and adversity. The everyone wins mentality is prevalent well beyond gaming and is probably one of the dumbest concepts I have ever encountered. Combined with the entitlement already fairly intrinsic to gaming communities, it certainly doesn't help any parent out to have their kid play the game. Other than as a distraction. One that may bite you in the ass later when the kid possibly becomes a spoiled little [censored].

5. Ehh...lets not get into sports. Many of the skills learned there are incredibly useful in later life. Learning to earn respect, managing people, working hard to earn something, dealing with losing, appreciating winning, getting exercise, etc etc... Also, having a kid think working is incredibly important is far from the worse thing you can do to a kid. Clearly there is room for other things while having your kid have productive hobbies. Fun is subjective. You can get a kid to like something that is far more productive than gaming. Drawing, sports, history, sciences, etc etc... Gaming does little to encourage artistic skills, other than as inspiration. You learn mostly useless information while playing games. Morals are usually terrible. Science and History have rarely if ever been done well in any game. If you look at it from the standards that exist elsewhere, such as books or movies. Point is, there is practically nothing of value in gaming, other than as a means of killing time. Just about anything else is more meaningful.

6. Same, but they are nonetheless and parents aren't doing [censored] about it. Not that I can really blame them, a kid can get onto the internet anytime they want given a little effort.

7. Except this drug isn't treated like one. Mental addictions are some of the hardest to deal with and can be much more problematic than physical ones. Gaming easily becomes a mental addiction and the user might not even realize it. Why risk that with your most precious possession? Your children really shouldn't be playing games very much, especially when they are young. But most do so completely unregulated by anything other than themselves or some mild monitoring by their parent.

The topic mentioned children and that is the focus of any age restriction. What do you want your kid exposed to? 18+ games are not the only things to worry about as a parent. Video game's effects on childhood growth isn't well understood yet. Most of what we have seen is pretty negative though. Everything in moderation. Especially games. Video games play on the parent too. "Ooh, he stays home and doesn't get in any trouble!? Great!" Now fast forward ten years and look at his development. Video games don't often engage you in a way that enables growth. Most growth comes with interacting with peers as you try to figure things out. I just can't see video games as positive even though I love to play them, albeit increasingly rarely.

Well, if anything you should know how ambivalent I am about gaming as a rule myself. I too find myself playing DA.

Yes, activity is good, and inactivity is bad, but that's not just a problem with gaming. Books, watching youtube, television, theatre, listening to music... pretty much anything that regularly tops hobbies lists is passive. Even something active, like art, involves a whole lot of sitting on your ass. This is an issue with an increasingly sedentary society. Take away video games, and odds are that kid's gonna kick out in front of the tube. I'm not saying it's good, but gaming is certainly more active than television. It stimulates the brain and involves dexterity and problem solving.

Not at all. In fact, kids raised as gamers are more likely to engage with games designed for gamers. While there is no denying the popularity of Call of Duty, it's a game with a great deal of appeal for a certain type of audience. Let's look at some other intensely popular games, shall we? Angry Birds is about calculation of trajectory and solving physics puzzles, and for a while there it outsold Call of Duty. The Sims is a construction game meets a money management game meets a life sim, and has always managed to be one of the single most popular series out there. But, let's get down to the nitty gritty shall we? While none of them top the short term sales of the latest CoD game, want to know what the consistently most profitable genre of games is? Puzzle games. Games like Bejeweled and Luxor are some of the most played games out there, and are games that promote active thought and visual-spatial reasoning to an absurd degree. Twitch games are one of the most popular styles, but are far from the be all and end all.

Funnily enough, games can actually promote the growth of social skills. For example, I doubt I'd be as capable as I am had I not spent all of those years playing WoW. It provided me a safe, cooperative, judgment free zone to come out of my shell and get used to casual socialization with all different types of people. You're coming at this from the perspective of someone who socializes very easily. For many of us, perhaps even most of us on this forum, we come from a place of crippling shyness, social awkwardness and rejection, and generally being maladjusted for society. When I began high school, I was nearly incapable of interaction with people. I had panic attacks at the prospect. The connections I made through gaming allowed me a common factor with people that I still call friends today. It gave us something to bond over. It gave us something to discuss.

For many of the less socially adept, less attractive, or maybe even developmentally disabled, gaming provides a social benefit. It provides a space where we can grow together and learn to socialize, and yes, form connections with people who can help us for years to come. My closest friend, who has helped me to an absurd degree in the past and will likely continue to in the future, and I hope it's the same the other way, became my friend over playing Starcraft after school. It may not conform with the mainstream concept of socialization, but the traditional "gamer" demographic has always contained those people who didn't socialize in the mainstream way to begin with.

Look at the incredible explosions of games like Dark Souls, Day Z, and so on if you don't think of those types of games selling well. They may not be Modern Warfare, but damn if they ain't something.

There's a difference between power fantasy and a game that builds ego by skillful play. A power fantasy is (arbitrarily defined as) a game that, through no ability of the player, allows them to experience the sensation of being [censored] awesome. Something like Duke Nukem may seem like a power fantasy at first based on the main character, for example (even though the whole game takes so many jabs at that kind of guy), or Doom, based on the (one marine kills thousands), but those games are intensely difficult experiences if played on anything but the lowest difficulties. Beating those games means coming from the underdog position and prevailing. It means getting your ass kicked time and time and time again and sticking with it until you win. It doesn't build pointless ego, it makes you earn it. And it means you have to respect the challenge enough to win.

If you're talking about the male power fantasy thing, that's changing for the better, but still isn't that big a deal. When the current generation of gamers was in diapers, we were happily playing as powerful female characters, like Samus and Jill Valentine (master of lockpicking). For the most part, it's rarely mattered what gender, or even species, your character was, so long as the game was good. Traditionally, games were a majority male hobby and produced by majority male developers. As that changes, the content of the games changes. Elizabeth from Bioshock was the main character of that game, not Booker. Remember Me had an excellent female protagonist. These are just a drop in the bucket. The Binding of Isaac has you playing as a damn infant. If you only look at Gears of War or Call of Duty, you get male power fantasy characters, because that's the kind of target audience those games are going for. Scratch the surface and it gets a whole lot more complex.

Any competitive, team-based activity can do the same. Lead a raid in WoW and tell me that you don't get any of that. Or a major eSports team.

Drawing does nothing for the kid, unless he's Van Gogh. It provides a creative outlet, nothing more. Sports is only superior to equivalent competitive gaming because it's active, otherwise, they're just playing a game. Science is good for the kid to study, but you'd be shocked at the overlap between the sciences and the traditional "gamer" demographic. As for history, well, it's hardly the most useful thing for a kid to be studying.

But at the end of the day, outside of everything that's been discussed thus far, no, there's nothing of value in gaming. Except for amusemant, in addition to everything else. If you want it to be a time sink, it's a time sink. If you want it to be an artform, it's at least as much of one as movies.

If this was posted 10 or maybe 20 years ago I would say yes. Mostly because I played games that were maybe a bit too mature for my age but I turned out alright because at the time video games were not a big thing so they didn't rule the lives of children as much as they do today. Today I would say no, I feel like if a kid plays a game rated 'M' for Mature and that is primarily all they play from the ages of 5 to 18.

There is a very good chance that the kid will come out with a very twisted take on morality and life in general. My daughter can not play games rated mature because she is 11 and electronics already rule her life. When I was in the United States I met a kid that said and I quote "All Russians must be bad people because you kill them in Call of Duty. I think it would be cool to do that in real life." Now I know this was one kid that was 11 and this doesn't involve every child in the world but I literally got chills when I heard him say that. This is coming from a man that experienced the worst of humanity and seen death as a casual occurrence in the worst places on Earth. So I don't want that happening to any more children.

So in short I treat my mature video games like my dad treated his dirty magazines, shove them under my bed and act like you didn't know they existed when you child finds them.