Age ratings have always been somewhat of a thorny issue between gamers, but with games like Modern Warfare 2 surely topping the the Christmas lists of many kids this year it's become a slight concern for us older generation of gamers. Games are pretty much the only toy around with an age rating unrelated to how swallow-able their small parts are, but they have rapidly become must-have Christmas presents. This doesn't surprise me at all, but it has begun to make me a little...uneasy.

There can be no doubt that the shops are doing their bit with regards to ID-ing teenagers of indeterminate age before selling them games, (2 were turned away while I fought the crowds in GAME last week), and I was even ID'd when I tried to buy Assassin's Creed II - before the clerk examined the 15+ rating sticker more closely and decided it probably wasn't necessary. However, my concern isn't with the shops themselves, but with the parents. I wonder how many of them will submit to a young gamer's pleas for MW2 or God of War and inadvertently set themselves up for an 18-rated Christmas?

Assassin's Creed II: surprisingly, this is what a 15+ rating means these days (at least in the UK, anyway).

Unfortunately, the media attention around games these days is so all-encompassing that even gamers who can't play the big games of the year will inevitably want them anyway. It's an incredible burden to put on a parent to expect them to refuse a game that their child desperately wants - especially if their friends already have it - when the fleeting nature of games means that the same game will be old and irrelevant by the time they are old enough to play it legally. But does the age rating really matter? Is the disconnect between games and reality so large that the age rating doesn't have the same weight that it carries for film?

Obviously there are some things that it's best not to expose your 13 year-old son or daughter to on Christmas day, in front of Gran. Swearing, nudity, racism and scenes involving torture (physical or psychological) are best given a wide berth - I'm certainly not suggesting younger gamers should be allowed near Bioshock. But violence is usually the one that newspapers pipe up in objection to, and I don't think it holds the same disturbing-factor as the other things I've mentioned. The violence seen in some games today is so over the top, it doesn't compare at all to the simple shock and horror of seeing a real person be beaten up or shot on the silver screen. I think that the fantasy element present in games like Gears of War or Prototype means that they bear little relation to real life, and probably won't upset younger player so much as make them go "Ewww...cool!". Obviously, though, some people don't want their kids to see too much gore.

Prototype may be very violent, but does it bear any relation to reality?

Ultimately, it's up to the parents to decide, and I'm sure most of them strike the right balance between letting young gamers have what they want, and deciding what they probably won't like. After all, an 8 year old who asks for Batman: Arkham Asylam is probably going to enjoy a Ratchet and Clank or Zelda game more, purely because those games are designed for them. However, it's worth bearing in mind that the age rating doesn't mean the same as it once did - like film, it's constantly changing - and it surprised me that the neck-stabby Assassin's Creed II was awarded the same rating as the original Tomb Raider: a 15+ (interestingly, the PEGI rating is an 18+, so I have no idea why the UK has a different one). I wasn't surprised when the clerk ID'd me, but I was when I examined the age rating.