There was a recent article in the most recent issue of the British PCGamer magazine which i found quite interesting, and im sure many here will find it interesting too, especially with the recent Manhunt 2 events. The article, titled "Game Ratings Review", comments on a recent 107-page report by the BBFC (British Board of Film Classification, they do game and film ratings in the UK) which will be used when they rework their rating system later this year.

The full report by the BBFC can be found here if someone wants to read it:

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/downloads/pub/Policy%20and%20Research/BBFC%20Video%20Games%20Report.pdf

The main points made out are as follows: 

1. BBFC: "The reputation of a game seems to develop by word of mouth and there are
few references to marketing. But it is noticeable that gamers often know long
in advance when a new game is scheduled to appear; advertising and
previews on internet sites play an important role here. Magazines, with their
free demo discs, are probably influential with many of the young, although
they are not much talked about. Comment in the media generally, usually
negative, has helped some games (for example Manhunt and GTA)
into prominence."

This is something most of us already know. Bad press = Good sales. Negative press makes game more likely to be played in nearly all scenarios, such as during Hot Coffee and when Manhunt was supposedly linked to the killing of a kid. During both these incidents, games sales were boosted significantly.

2. BBFC: "Gamers appear to forget that they are playing a game less readily than
filmgoers forget that they are watching a film. There are a number of reasons
for this: gamers have to participate in the game for it to proceed; they get
used to saving and restarting games; the action in games is often highly
unreal; graphics are not as real looking as film. The fact that gamers may not
be very engaged emotionally is also relevant. This is not to say that gamers
do not concentrate intently whilst they are playing; many do, and parents
report that it can be impossible to get their sons’ attention whilst they are
playing. However intense concentration, and fierce determination to win or
make progress, are not the same as deep emotional involvement."

Because a gamer is focused on playing a game, it does not mean that their emotions are being adversely effected. PCGamer said in the article that in one of their surveys the majority of the correspondents "said they used video games more than TV and Films to relax", but i dont know how useful this survey can actually be, as it is a Gaming magazine.

3. BBFC: "[most gamers] think
violence on television and in films is more upsetting than violence in games.
Film images are more ‘real’ than computer graphics, and film creates a more
compelling illusion; they feel these two factors transcend the fact that games,
uniquely, inspire ownership of the violence because they are interactive."

This is a major point that most of the people on these forums - ive noticed - make out time and time again. A video game is not real, they do not look totaly real, and films will probably have more of an effect on people than video games. The BBFC have noted that with their research they have noted that even young players "have their feet firmly on the ground when playing games and know very well that it is just a game" . Hopefully these observations will lead to a more lenient rating system.

4. BBFC: "Gamers are virtually unanimous in rejecting the suggestion that video game
violence encourages people to be violent in real life, or otherwise
desensitises them to violence. A few appear to think that playing ‘a lot too
much’ may make people aggressive. And some feel that people ‘who are
already unhinged in some way’ may be inspired or prompted or pushed
over the edge if they play violent games obsessively. Gamers exonerate
games of any responsibility for real violence because they are so confident
that their own propensity to be violent has not been affected by
playing games."

As PCGamer points out here, it's a good thing to see that the BBFC is actually taking gamer's opinions seriously and into account with this report, something most people think they dont do.

5. BBFC: "For most gamers, but with emphatic exceptions, storylines appear to be a
relatively weak element in the overall appeal of games. Gamers may have
some curiosity about how the elements in a game will come together in a
final resolution, but it is their progression through the game, rather than a
strong story line, that grips their attention. In part this is because they solve
problems to make progress, but cannot influence the ultimate outcome. In
Tomb Raider, for example, gamers steadily unlock the inevitable narrative;
they are not held by the story, but by the problem solving."

Here, an interesting point is made, the point that most games do have terrible storylines. When i think about it, most games ive played have been about an italian plumber saving a princess trapped in a castle, from a dinosaur... PCGamer question this point in their article by noting:

"[it is] Interesting, and a key difference from other artforms. But what's the real cause and effect here? Do we play games for their mechanics because their stories are rubbish?" 

The whole point of this article is to show how the BBFC are adapting to changing views on video games, and the report draws some interesting conclusions. Especially with the recent banning of Manhunt 2, i wonder how this report will actually affect video games rating in the UK in the future, and how drastic the rating changes will be.

Most of the points i made here were taken from PCGamer, i dont take this work to be totally my own, but i have made a few of my own comments on the subject. I just though people would like to read this, but i dont have a Scanner :P