Concerns about mature content in video games have plenty of people in an uproar and sensationalists revel in the opportunity to fan the flames. But is all of this controversy really warranted? As entertainment mediums go, is gaming so much worse than its peers? Yes, like any other medium, gaming has a few rogues who go too far with publicity stunts- and they should be appropriately punished –but on the whole the video game industry does not deserve the scrutiny it receives.

As any medium expands, those who create content attempt to push boundaries and broaden horizons. Often the forerunners are subjected to the white hot light of public scrutiny but the gaming avant garde seem to receive more than their fair share. Upon comparison, what makes a game that explores the dark side of mankind so much different than a TV show or movie?

For example, "No Country for Old Men", a movie whose story centres on a cold-blooded murderer, found its gruesome content nominated for an Academy Award. Manhunt, on the other hand, was decried as sick and repulsive. Its release spawned angry mobs eager to lynch its creators.

What exactly is the distinction between the two? After all, both carry an equivalent rating to indicate that the content is intended for mature audiences. Statistics even show that the ESRB, the group responsible for video game ratings in the US, is far more effective than its motion picture counterpart, the MPAA, in the task of ensuring that mature content only reaches mature audiences.

Some groups claim that interactivity and repetition are the keys. The argument is that watching a violent movie or TV show once or twice is nowhere near as severe as manipulating a game character to perform similar actions. The problem I have with this argument is that TV and movies offer the same kind of manipulation and repetition, but do so outside the film via toys, most of which are marketed primarily to kids. Here's a thought to try on for size: Though GI Joe does not contain explicit blood or gore, it does portray violence and (unlike an M-rated game) is unequivocally intended for children. For many years GI Joe action figures have allowed kids to wage imaginary war with all manner of miniature guns, tanks, planes, and so forth. I have nothing against GI Joe; I just can't recall the last time a parent group led a campaign against GI Joe with the level of tenacity equal to that with which they have gone after some games. So why then are games such higher priority targets?

I personally believe part of the issue revolves around the word "game." The word "game" is associated with fun and play, which are concepts heavily linked to children. The fact that many early games were targeted at children only serves to solidify that mental link. This confusion that games are, by definition, meant for children couldn't be further from the truth. We have adult games like gambling, alcohol-drinking games, war games, and even sex games for consenting adults. Nevertheless, the association between the word "game" and children is hard to shake.

Naturally, when video games began challenging the expectation of being a product for children, confusion intensified and became outrage. Going beyond simply complaining to publishers and developers, many are pushing for games with mature themes to be segregated from the regular stock. It's not sufficient that most retailers strictly enforce policies requiring photo ID or a parent to purchase M-rated games. The contention is that mature games should be treated less like movies or TV shows and more like alcohol, pornography, or my personal favourite- guns! They aim to keep mature games concealed from plain sight and under lock & key. Meanwhile, they don't seem to notice that Ratatouille may find itself partnered with Robocop two aisles over.

Beyond the prejudice of terminology is another idea that mainstream media giants like Fox, angered at losing marketshare to video games, are waging a propaganda war. They hope that by frightening parents they can keep more eyeballs firmly fixed on their programming. I'm not the first to suggest the idea, and some say it borders on paranoia but what other plausible explanation is there for Fox to broadcast a borderline soft-core porn encounter during one of their own programs and then use the term "Sex Box" to headline a news story denouncing the sexual encounter depicted in Mass Effect?

Whatever the reason, the uninformed (or at least misinformed) are easily persuaded to join the witch-hunt against mature games and those who create them. While it is undoubtedly important to protect kids from inappropriate content, it is equally important to allow content creators the freedom to tackle the tougher, deeper aspects of the human condition. To that end we, as gamers, must take care to dispel rumours, correct inaccuracies, discredit propaganda hustlers and generally serve as watchdogs for our pastime.

The rewards will be well worth the efforts.