Rockstar love controversy. The GTA series was in existence for years before anyone noticed, and the only reason people started to take notice was because the media got all in a frenzy when GTA3 was released on PS2. Carmageddon had similar good fortune on the PC years ago, yet subsequent sequels didn't sell terribly well because the media had a new crusade that week.

The latest of Rockstar's games to come under the media spotlight is Bully. The BBC are running a news story about "Leicester MP Keith Vaz" (and I am, frankly, sick of hearing from the publicity seeking clown) saying that Bully should either be banned, or submitted to the BBFC for classification. Thanks Keith, you really did your home work there didn't you?

Two things: One – in the UK it's been a crime to sell games that are rated "mature" to minors for some time. Games have been granted certificates for some time too. It's illegal to sell an 18 rated dvd or video to anyone under that age, just as it's illegal to sell an 18 rated game. Rockstar have always submitted their games to the BBFC for approval, and so far they've all been 18 rated (with the exception of Midnight Club). Children shouldn't be playing them, and the parents should make sure the children aren't playing them. Full stop. The vast majority of parents won't (or shouldn't) allow their children to watch 18 rated spatter films, or porn, so why let them play games? The problem is this: Games have this "cutesy" image, and certain parents are so ignorant that they don't care what little Jimmy is doing, as long as he's not bothering them:

• "The children are quiet today dear, did you get them a new game?"
• "yes honey, they're playing that new Sim Serial Killer game that's just come out"
• "Ooh, that sounds fun, what's it about?"
• "Do you know, I have no idea. I think it involves arranging coloured squares or something"
• "How lovely – bless them…"

Two – Bully isn't even finished yet. It's still quite a way from being finished, in actual fact. Knee jerk reactions which demand that Bully be banned, or that it will mess up your children are completely misinformed – not just misinformed, but uninformed. They cannot possibly know what the content of the game is like, because nobody knows yet. Rockstar never show their games off until just before their release. How can Keith Vaz and various US politicians and lawyers get all steamed up over what they think the game might contain? Should we ban something, purely based on its title, because we think it might have content that we don't like?

• "Hello this is Keith Vaz, I want you to ban the game you currently have in development!"
• "Um…do you mean Serial Killer Apocalypse 7, the game that features graphic violence and mayhem inflicted upon realistic virtual representations of human beings?"
• "Yes, ban it, it's sick and wrong."
• "Er…ok. We have another game in development that's similar in content. Should we ban that too?
• "What's that one called?"
• "Fluffy Bunny Apocalypse 7, the game that features graphic violence and mayhem inflicted upon realistic virtual representations of human beings."
• "No, no – that one's fine. Bye, bye."

I long for the day when gamers get the representation they deserve. There doesn't seem to be any sensible voice that can state the facts, and the media sensationalism really doesn't help. As the graphics in games become more and more lifelike (hello, Xbox 360) the media, and Keith Vaz, and Jack Thompson, will all become more and more concerned that little Jimmy is being turned into a rampaging psychopath by the latest version of Grand Theft Auto. Where are the pro-gaming politicians? Surely they must exist. I wonder if David Cameron has an xbox…