system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Video game age ratings are often far too strict on violence and language and lower ratings would be completely acceptable for many games

I'm going to use the US ESRB system for this CMV as there are probably more people who are familiar with it, but the same logic applies to other rating systems such as PEGI.

Video games are given age ratings according to the levels of violence, sexual content, language and drug/alcohol use that they contain. The reason for this is to give an idea of what age they are appropriate for and to reduce the chances of young children being exposed to inappropriate content.

For example, the ESRB's "Mature 17+" age rating covers games that contain "intense violence". Some M-rated games do contain torture scenes and graphic sexual content that would be likely to affect younger people; in this case, I would consider the 17+ rating to be justified. 

However, more often than not, games are given the M rating just for containing shooting at human characters with some blood. (This is true of many online first person shooters, which rarely contain "inappropriate" content besides violence.) While this sounds inappropriate for individuals younger than 17 on paper, most people who have played these games can tell you that the violence isn't really as serious as it's made out to be, and blood is often unrealistic and not very noticeable in a fast-paced situation. 

A mature 12-14 year old would easily be able to distinguish a video game from reality. Furthermore, common sense should dictate that as long as a person of any age can tell the difference between fantasy and reality, there is no reason to worry that a video game might cause real world violence. 

Similarly, language is also taken very seriously in game ratings. I recently played a platformer that was rated M17+ for repeated use of the F word, but the same word is often used in PG-13 movies and I don't see why repeating the same word several times is any more inappropriate than just using it once, especially considering that most teenagers will already hear swear words in school all the time.

As a result, there are many (not all) M-rated games that could have a lower age rating, since it is often just violence and language that gives them that rating. Whilst the content descriptor of "intense violence" sounds serious, there are still many games whose violence is not as strong as it is made out to be, and that could easily be handled by most teenagers. 

I'm not saying that every M rated game deserves a lower rating, but many can be handled by people under 17.

The existence of unnecessarily high age ratings would be restrictive and unneeded, as well as potentially giving an exaggerated false impression of the content in a game.
gpt
The current ESRB rating is good for the games industry. The main reason it exists is because of media backlash about games like Mortal Kombat (yes, the original). There was a big hubbub about kids being exposed to this graphic and offensive material (laughable by today's standards), and to cover its butt, the game industry created the system we have now. Every now and again, we'll still see backlash against video game violence in the news, but at least now the game industry can say, "Well, kids aren't even supposed to have it." 

It may be true that younger folks can handle it (I definitely could), but that restriction is protecting our games from actual government censorship and regulation, and we don't want that, do we?