It's rated T for Teen. Obviously the ESRB didn't give as much consideration to "kids" playing it. I don't care one way or the other. I did extensive research and even wrote my senior paper on this subject in college pulling from only peer reviewed material. You are merely belittling children. It's Teen rated. If it was Mature rated. Sure, we can have this discussion. But it isn't.

And for as many studies linking negative tendencies, there have been just as many positive studies. Studies don't mean jack shit when it's just posted for some online viewing. Peer reviewed articles hold a million times more merit.

There's also another thing that could stop them from playing... Parents. If parents would take responsibility and read the backs of these video games and decide themselves wether their children should be playing this. Or if parents were actually teaching the difference between right and wrong.

Violent children are violent whether they play video games or not. I really hate when video games are blamed for tragic events because they make it seem like it's the only reason someone went bad. They make it sound as if an innocent, impressionable kid was out picking flowers for mommy when video games came along and were like "hey, -blam!- your mom, let's go kill some people!" Destiny is rated T, so children probably should not play it, but it's up to parents to make the right decision for their kids. Teens, however, can go for it. This game is not violent enough that a normal, mentally healthy teen can't handle it. If a teenager who plays the game goes nuts, it's not going to be because he played Destiny, even if that's what ends up taking the blame. When I was a teenager, I played all sorts of violent video games and now I'm a productive member of society who has never hurt anyone. This may be shocking to viewers of FOX news, but the majority of gamers are not psychos who don't know the difference between what's real and what's not.

cod has blood so more parents would probably prefer their child play destiny over cod. Its up to the parents. Hitler didn't play video games & look what he did

Guys i did a survey. I have finally come to the conclusion that people are violent due to being outside. Approximately 100% of people who commit any crime have been outside at least once in their live. It should be illegal that anyone should be exposed to this. This will stop a massive amount of crimes and help the world. Make this illegal. It's for our children.

I know you're just trolling but what the hell, I'll bite. [b]Scientific research has shown a causal relationship between violent videogames and an increase in youth aggression?[/b] This is one of those theories that has been posited several times in research papers on “Media Effects” an area that has so far produced over 300 studies into the effects of media violence, the majority of which have been inconclusive. Several though claim that there is a direct link between violent video games and increased aggression amongst youths, but as Henry Jenkins (Director of Comparative studies at MIT) points out in his essay on the subject; “Many have been criticized on methodological grounds. In these studies, media images are removed from any narrative context. Subjects are asked to engage with content that they would not normally consume and may not understand.” Furthermore the Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol 31(10), Oct, 2001 concluded that Playing a violent video game did not increase the aggressive moods of children. In fact compared to a paper and pencil games the opposite was true, violent video games actually increased the positive moods of children. Unfortunately this leaves us with quite a problem, as most research papers do not explain their methodology in anything like the detail that would be required for the reader to obtain an objective viewpoint, of all the studies published all that could be concluded was that they found a correlation (not a causal relationship) that simply shows that aggressive people tend to like aggressive entertainment and that feelings of isolation, anger and powerlessness often pre-exist a compulsion to enjoy violent media including but not limited to video games. To use a bad analogy, it's not owning a gun that makes you want to kill people, it's wanting to kill people that makes you want to own a gun. [b]Video games are responsible for an increase in youth crime?[/b] One for the Daily Mail readers and luckily one that is easy to debunk as nothing more than a myth. In America at least the rate of juvenile violent crime has fallen over time to a 30 year low, in England youth crime has been reported to have steadily increased over the past 15 years, however the CIVITAS factsheet on youth crime in England and Wales states: “Genuine concerns remain about trends in some categories of serious offending involving young people – notably an association between the use of weapons, gang membership and drug dealing in major cities. There is, however, no evidence of any increase overall in youth crime in the past ten years – or in the proportion of serious or frequent young offenders.” It’s worth noting that violent youth crime is responsible for a relatively small percentage of the crime statistics, first time offences are down 21% and the largest (in fact disproportionate) increase is in young female offenders. If you take a closer look at the available crime statistics 25% of boys and 40% of girls claim that they have experienced violence in the home. Of prisoners aged between 16 – 20 around 85% show signs of a personality disorder of those 10% show signs of psychotic illness. In 2007, there were over 1,000 self-harm incidents among children aged 15 and 17 within the custodial system. Boys in prison aged 15-17 are eighteen times more likely to kill themselves than in the community. Over the years with the increase in tabloid journalism, the demonisation of different subsets of youth culture has become prevalent in our society, this is not to say that there isn't a problem with juvenile crime, but there is an awful lot more that should be considered and examined before laying any portion of the blame at the door of video games. The largest causes of juvenile crime appear according to the majority of independent research to be caused by social and economic forces, to blame any form of entertainment for a perceived yet unsupported increase, does seem in this case to be nothing more than scaremongering. [b]Video games have a desensitising effect on the people that play them?[/b] Again this is as much down to flawed methodology in the research producing a flawed conclusion, media reformers have been campaigning for years that playing violent video games can cause a lack of empathy for real world victims, however as Jenkins states; “A child who responds to a video game the same way he or she responds to a real-world tragedy could be showing symptoms of being severely emotionally disturbed” As Eric Zimmerman (Game designer and play theorist) explains, play is distinctive from reality, he theorizes the principle of the ‘magic circle’ that children enter when at play, this allows the same action in the play world to hold a different meaning than that of the same action in the real world, as Jenkins points out “Media effects research, which often uses punching rubber dolls as a marker of real-world aggression, becomes problematic. The kid who is punching a toy designed for this purpose is still within the "magic circle" of play and understands their actions on those terms.” Which does little but prove that violent play of one kind does not lead to anything more than an increase in violent play of another kind, what it fails to show however is a causal link to anything within the real world. [b]Scientists are impartial and only point out conclusions based on the outcome of their research?[/b] Whilst I wouldn’t go as far as calling shenanigans on any particular paper I did find it interesting that (as is true in many areas of study) several primary researchers seem to be producing many of the studies suggesting a link between violent video games and aggression. Now as I have always understood it, the role of any scientist is to remain agnostic until such point that the research demonstrates an alternative to this viewpoint. However the frequency with which certain names appear on these papers suggest that there may be an argument that some researchers may be starting with a conclusion that they want to arrive at and then (subconsciously even) carrying out research to validate this conclusion. If you take a look at Anderson's paper 'An update on the effects of playing violent video games' 30th Oct. 2003 he points out that their has been considerable research into the effects and impact of exposure to media violence, he then references research that has been carried out on the subject by, Anderson and Bushman 2001, Bushman and Huesmann 2001, Huesmann and Miller 1994, Anderson and Huesmann 2003, Anderson and Bushman 2002a, Bushman and Anderson 2001 and Anderson and Bushman 2002b, out of the 23 papers used as research Anderson himself was responsible for 10 of them. In a science brief written by Anderson; Violent Video games: Myths, Facts and unanswered questions 2003, Anderson cites 10 different reference papers 8 of which were his own works. There is also an argument to be made that studies that show the positive effects of videogames are less likely to be published. Evidence for publication bias in video game violence effects literature: A meta-analytic review by Ferguson, Christopher J.; Aggression and Violent Behavior, Vol 12, 2007 concluded that there was a definite publication bias for experimental studies of aggressive behaviour and that studies demonstrating that video games cause violence are more likely to be published.

Not Bungie's----or anyone else's---job to parent other people's kids. The age warnings are so that parents can make an informed choice about what they do---and do not---expose their kids to. It parent's choose to allow their kids to play, who has the right to countermand that decision??

[b]DO NOT FEED HIM, HE IS A WELL KNOWN, ALBEIT SIMPLE MINDED, TROLL. [/b] A friendly warning from your neighborhood troll watch team.

I agree. Anyone under 15 should be euthanized.

You are trolling, but it is actually a correlation between video games and aggression. It was thought to be violent games at first, but it actually comes from general frustration from games.