Allow me to start this article with a short story. This uneventful situation happened a couple of days ago, one that sparked interest in writing this article.

I visited a game store to browse through their "old games" bin, meaning discounted prices on games released in 2004 or earlier. I was lucky enough to snag Clive Barker's Undying and Thief: Deadly Shadows for half their original prices. I approached another rack and found the Online Games section. I was feeling lucky, seeing a boxed set of Final Fantasy Online (with all the expansions) was on sale for 30% less the actual price. I continued browsing for new stuff like some PSP and NDS games before I decided to pay for what I got. It was then I had noticed a boy, probably 10 years old, and his father enter the store. I saw the little kid reach for Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. I quote from the child: "I wanna play this, daddy. I saw <insert some name here> play and it's fun!" The dad gave some money and notioned this child to send the game to the counter. I, being the courteous one, let the child first in the cashier before me. What followed after piqued my interest. The sales guy didn't accept the child's attempted purchase of GTA, naturally because the kid was underaged to play the game, more so, buy it. And here comes the dad, asking what's wrong. The sales guy told the dad he cannot allow such a purchase, on the defense of the age restriction of the game. The dad, of course a natural buyer, goes on rebuttal with the quote "The customer is always right." The sales guy stood by his decision, making the child cry. The dad, now infuriated, stated that he will be buying the game, and not the kid. I quote a statement from the dad: "I'm sure I am old enough to buy and play this game!" The sales guy could not contest anymore and thus accepted the purchase. The game was bagged with its receipt stapled. The dad took the bag and gave it to his son just to make the kid stop crying.

This is probably the second time I saw something like this. The first  time was when a parent came barging in [a different game store] complaining to the manager about the decline of sale to her child. The manager explained the violent content of the game, but fell to deaf ears.

See the pattern here? In order to keep the customer "happy," retailers would sell the games to their parents. What's even more appalling is the fact that parents are also sueing retailers  for not selling the games to their kids.  If retailers do experience such a  confusing situation,  what more for online games?  The  online  world is littered with numerous free -to-dowload and free-to-play  games. As smart as kids can be, it's safe to assume that  children as young as 5 or 6 years old can browse the internet or play games. They can easily explore  sites like MMOsite for downloadable content,  register using  their parents' email, and play. Let's not underestimate the intelligence of these children. They learn fast, and they apply what they've learned even faster. For all we know, a little child can stumble upon Requiem: Bloodymare's website, indicate a random false birthday,  download the game without permission, and play despite the age restrictions. Unlike retailers and other human beings, a website's registration form is easy to fool with false information like age or name.  

There are two different sides to responsible gaming: Playing and Not Playing. Each takes many  forms, many ways on convincing you to take this side or the other, prolly through ads or a ratings board like ESRB. But that doesn't mean they decide for you. As far as we know,  within responsible gaming lies a black and white stereotype with a gray area in between... where neither Requiem is  bloody-hell gory nor Hello Kitty is  truly worksafe. That's what makes it all the more chilling, not because they control us... but because  they don't. They are best meant to be outside forces, giving us options, leaving us to decide. Many of us can declare Requiem or 2Moons as "mildly violent," or say that Hello Kitty is too violent for its target audience. You see, we cause these stereotypes. It is through our views and decisions that gives each and every individual game the reputation they deserve. 

So what does that say about our society? There might be truth to the notion that any game a child, or anyone of us here, plays has the possibility to affect our psyche in one way or another, resulting in either a constructive or destructive conclusion. But I am sure that we, the older and more veteran players, are supposed to raise these kids -- not the Lich King, not an NPC named Bob, not Pip Boy, and not even Hello Kitty. We have the common sense in knowing right from wrong because we were raised that way. We are, in one way or another, responsible for these children, and with that, make sure that they too know right from wrong. Insisting that a child play a game that has been deemed too mature for him/her is not the best proof of responsibility, however...