No they are there for a reason. No body wants there 5 year old playing a game with violence and bad language as the minor will think its acceptable to do in public. thats the reason there there.

They should keep them, though there are some kids out there that are mature enough to see and handle these games without the urge to want to do any of it. I was one of these kids. It depends on the maturity of the child that plays them, but ratings should stay for if the family wants to block that type rating from entering their home.

yes because they are going to see it one day or another

GvT-Zeus

My first PS2 game was GTA 3 and i was like 8-9 i cant really remember. All my parents did was mute the sound. i turned out fine. i honestly can understand both sides. but all up to the parent. It's to give them a general age to either let them play or not.

Yes they are pretty pointless because 90% of people playing Call of duty are squeakers or under 17.

The idea od them being there no, but they are because like 95% parents actually ignore the age thing and buy it for children at like 11-13.

They are not restrictions at all. They're just recommendations.

Yes, they are pointless because you are still going to get a 12 year old to get his mom to buy an 18 year old game.

No they are not pointless when it's rated "M" it means my Mommy bought it .

Yes and no...

No because I can't stand underage kids (squeakers) on CoD or Halo!

Yes because parents are just gonna let their kids do whatever anyways...