Sigh, we've been through all this before….

You might think that I'm talking about MadWorld, the new Wii game out this week that's making waves among concerned parents' groups like the Parents Television Council. But the above paragraph is actually in reference to a game that came out 8 years ago on the Nintendo 64, Conker's Bad Fur Day.

It, also, was controversial for being an over-the-top, violent game with a bleak sense of humour sold exclusively on a Nintendo console which was the most family/kid-friendly among all video game console options at the time.

It, too, carried a 17 + only rating. Look, I don't disagree with parents who say violent games should not generally be played by children. I've played MadWorld and though it's rather enjoyable, I will certainly not let the average child approach it. It's a video game that actually rewards you with higher amounts of bonus points based on how stylishly and gruesomely you dispatch your hapless opponents. Did you just repeatedly slam that gangster-like fellow into a bed of nails? Good. But if you first immobilized him by forcing a tire around his chest, and then blinded him by plunging the pointy end of a signpost into one of his eyes, that's even better.

The question I'd like to ask, though, is: why should nobody be allowed to play these games? If there are adults out there who think spending $50 or $60 to live out macho male fantasies from action movies or books is a good idea, who are these parents' groups to tell them not to do it?

I'm not going to get into whether the violence has a profound, philosophical point or not. (In MadWorld, incidentally, as the game's story progresses, it becomes increasingly obvious the game designers mean to mock society's obsession with violence as much as celebrate it). In some games, it does, in others, it does not.

Video games, or consoles, are not just for children. Neither are specific games or consoles. Sure, the majority of Nintendo Wii's games are more family-friendly, and this is an image the company has always espoused, and will likely continue to as long as it helps them retain a share of profit (don't be fooled by Mario's jovial voice, he has a business to run too). But there have been blood and guts-heavy games on Nintendo consoles at least since the technology to support the gore visually has been there. I'm thinking of Mortal Kombat II in 1994, which, incidentally, also caused a media stir, and also carried a mature gamers' rating.

Conversely, Sony's Playstation 3 and Microsoft's X-BOX 360 are known for catering to an older audience. Does this mean more kid-friendly software like LittleBigPlanet or Banjo-Threeie should not appear on those consoles?

The real problem is that the ratings system is still not meaningfully reinforced in any way. A lot of retailers will sell a violent video game to a child without so much as a second thought.

Some parents, also, are to blame. Though parents have become more vigilant and media-savvy over the years, many are the moms and dads who still purchase a game their child is asking for without even glancing at the warning labels or the descriptions on the back of the game box. On MadWorld's box, for example, one may read: "Blood and Gore, Drug Reference, Intense Violence, Mature Humour, Strong Language, Sexual Themes."

On what planet does it sound like a good idea to sell a game like that to a minor, or buy one for them?

Some children, of course, mature faster than others. When video games start to carry warning labels like the one I just quoted, my best advice to parents who find their kids asking them for the game is not to go online and see what parent's group X, Y, or Z wrote. It's to go to the nearest rental store, rent the game, get your own feel for it, and decide whether your child is mature enough to play and enjoy it or not.