Last week MediaWatch-UK called for Sega’s game MadWorld to be banned, and it’s not even due out until next year. The group, which aim to protect children from seeing material unsuitable for them, claim that the game flies in the face of the Nintendo Wii’s otherwise “family friendly” appeal. The N-Europe staff discuss whether its time the blame stopped being put on developers and whether there would be an issue if this game was coming out on the 360 or PS3.

Is it time for “protecting bodies” to stop being quick to blame developers for content and look at how children manage to play these games? And would this even be an issue on the 360 and PS3?

Franklin:

Mediawatch-UK's call for MadWorld to be banned is ridiculous. Their main argument being that it should be denied a rating because of the console that t is on and that such a violent game would ruin the Wii's "family friendly image". All the while unaware that the Wii is already home to a number of "adult targeted" games such as Resident Evil 4, No More Heroes and a fair share of FPS World War 2 games. None of these have had any impact on the Wii being a "family console". Why? Because it is games like these that actually make it a "family console", ie: a console everyone in the family can use, from the 6 year old child to the 15 year old teen, the 21 year old still living at home and even the parents. Just because games like Wii Sports and Wii Fit have been hugely popular and can appeal to a wide range of ages does not mean these are the only games that should be on the console and that other genres that might be a bit more limited in their target audience should be ignored. Games consoles should be treated like DVD players, which are also a "family friendly" device and have software available that all ages can easily enjoy, eg: Disney and Pixar films, while at the same time also have films available that are specifically for a more "mature" audiences, eg: the Saw films.

And like with DVD players just because you own one does not mean you have to buy every piece of software released. Nobody is forcing you to open your wallet and game publishers don't mail out free copies of games to every console owner. If the worry is "Oh My God won't somebody think of the children?", ask yourself how do these children who are under the age specified on the box get the game? Poor store assistant, bought by parent or relative ignoring the age rating, bought online using a parents credit card? So a game like this gets into the hands of a minor who's at fault? According to Mediawatch-UK and the Daily Mail it must be the developer and publisher? Does anyone understand their logic?

Iun:

Ah the unbiased Daily Mail and self-styled moral crusaders, Media Watch. Good for you guys. This was a really important piece of news that definitely needed to be made public. We are so lucky to have people like this to tell us what is dangerous for our mental health and what is safe. Thank goodness, I can sleep again!

Right, that's the sarcasm over and done with: where the blazes were you when the Matrix was released? Where was the pious whining at the grim mind games of the latest Batman movie? Did you try and get any books banned lately, chaps?

No, you didn't. And the reason is that the games industry is still in its infancy and therefore it's an easy target for you and your scaremongering. Hundreds of games are released every year, and a small percentage of these have violent content or violent overtones. There are laws and guidelines in place to stop people buying them if they are underage. True, they do not always work as retailers have to rely on gut instinct to guess who might be under 18 and those who are not. But why not attack the age rating system as well? Where are the attacks on the magazines and websites that promote these games?

Nowhere, that's where, just like your true sense of moral rectitude and your spines. You are well aware that the gaming press will bite back and can provide a hundred logical and societal reasons why this content can be sold against your one reason you think it should not be.

And the sly dig on the Wii itself is old ground, typical of our media. We favour big-hearted losers to cut-throat winners, and the Wii is this generation's big winner. The Honeymoon is over with the press, now they will take every shot they can do just to make news. It happens with our emerging talent in the sports and entertainment industries - for a few months we build up out new stars only to knock them down on a quiet news day by going through their bins and rooting around in their past.

Finally, why should this game not be available? The article makes it sound like a compulsory purchase, a twisted sort of "Buy a family console, get one morally bankrupt title free" deal. Parents do not have to buy this for their 8 year old, and if they do they should be doing so as an informed decision rather than an impulse buy. If they are making a decision to buy it, it is their responsibility, not the makers of the game. The box has a big "18" or "15" sticker on it, and if that's not a dead give away, then the blurb about killing on the back should be. Don't have time to look at the sticker or at the game description? Then you probably use the console as a means of diverting your children's attention from your lazy and worthless parenting: chances are your children are going to behave badly regardless of a computer game, and that's your fault.

Mark:

If MadWorld was on another console we wouldn't be seeing this kind of controversy. The PS3 and 360 have become an expected formality and therefore ignored by the mainstream medias this generation. The mainstream media don't care for controversy on said consoles purely because the Wii is this generations media darling.

Yet remember when GTA IV launched? The title is still a massive draw and so the media were bigging it up stating "you can do this, this, this..." Not only were the media savvy enough to understand that GTA IV was a massive title, they knew it would give them kudos to gamers and young listeners/viewers. Therefore, the mature, violent factors were given the cold shoulder. After all, they had punished the GTA series enough, starting back in the 1990's. This shows us that the media can change core ideas, yet only to see themselves prosper.

The fact that Wii has become the family console of choice is what matters here. Never before have the media had such a console in which your gran could be playing when the grandchildren are visiting. The media see Wii as a buzzword. One in which stands for harmless fun. This means MadWorld is an easy target on such a machine. A break from the norm that is unique. Something the media love to jump (or report) on. Having begun to think they understand Wii because everyone can "swing that racket", the media probably feel that Wii shouldn't be home to anything else.

And so, as proven time and time again, the media know so little about gaming and are so shocked and appalled by anything which remotely breaks the norm of their perceived world, that they create a backlash. MadWorld is an easy target. It fills papers, and causes controversy. And controversy, (especially when showing violence in unexpected places) sells.

How long will it take before we see such a turn of events? How long before this kind of tabloid videogame sensationalism becomes eradicated? I feel the answer is not too long, not too long at all. MadWorld? For now yes. Yes it is. But it's changing. Time will change everything. After all, the gamers of today are both the parents and journalists of tomorrow.

Ashley:

I have had my Wii since the day it came out and have yet to play it with my family, owning in part to the fact I don’t like with them. But regardless, if I were in a situation whereby I would be using it to entertain younger relatives I would chose Mario Kart, Rayman Raving Rabbids and Wii Sports from my games collection to entertain them. There would be no way I’d pick up Resident Evil 4, No More Heroes and Red Steel and consider them suitable for children. Not just because I have played the games and know the contents but also because of several clear indicators on the box alone; age ratings, swords, guns, chainsaws and women with provocatively opened tops. These things do not scream ‘suitable for children’. Most logically minded people would do the same. The sad truth of the matter is they do not even bother to check.

I spent two and a half years working at Game and in this time saw the launch of four new GTA games, in essence, (Liberty City Stories and Vice City Stories first on the PSP and then on the PS2) and each time the game came out kids would come in, parents in tow, pick up the game and hand it to their parents. When myself or a colleague would note “this game is rated 18 because of its strong language, violence and sexual themes” (as it says on the box anyway) the usual response was “yeah I know but whatever keeps them quiet.” Welcome to the age of half-arsed parenting.

The fact parents aren’t even bothered (and just to clear it up; some were, but the majority didn’t care) about the content of a game as long as it shuts their child up is, I’d say, the major cause of concern here. If a game is sold to an underage child the seller gets a hefty fine if caught. Shouldn’t parents be under the same scrutiny? They are doing the same thing, supplying an underage child with a product not suitable for them. However coming up with ideas like this are fairly fruitless. If a game causes controversy, for whatever reason, it is all apparently the developers fault. These evil soulless fiends are trying to corrupt everyone to the same level as themselves. Nasty pieces of work these game developers are.

If this game was released on the PS3 or 360 I can’t help but feel there would be nothing to report. These consoles’ Gears of Wars and Dark Sectors outweigh their Viva Pinatas and Little Big Planets so apparently its okay for violent games to be released on these consoles. I fail to see the logic in this; parents of children with PS3s or 360s are more used to checking a game before they buy it, but with the Wii they presume everything is suitable?

Fortunately as it stands the BBFC, the all-important board that will decide MadWorld’s fate in this country, has yet to speak about the issue. However its important to consider their post-Manhunt 2 stance. Will they be less quick to pounce due to the legal thrashing they received, or will they see themselves as the scourned outsiders who must do all they can to defend this country’s innocent children? Either way, I don’t think this is the last we’ll hear of MadWorld in the press.