Games are not films. Sounds obvious and it is. Films can be disturbing and clearly age ratings need to apply to them, but they are passive experiences, where as games are a very active experience. My son is 9 and to be fair, I do allow him to play COD with his friends online (with the gore etc. turned off). I play a campaign through and then make a call as to whether he can play that. Playing the first level of the Blops3 campaign was enough to tell me that it was clearly not appropriate (with the torture scenes etc.).
His friends at school (some who are just 7 or 8) play GTA5 online and he's constantly begging me to let him play it, as he feels left out. I can understand how he feels like that, but he's way too young to be playing that and I have flat out refused. I can't believe that some parents will let their kids play GTAV at 7 or 8. For me, my son would have to be at least mid teens (14/15) before I would let him play the likes of GTA5. It is a fine balance as I don't want to stop him having fun with his mates and I do feel that games can bring a lot of benefits as well, but some games are just not appropriate for his age and as a parent I have a responsibility for making those calls.
I certainly don't feel that the "Daily Mail, ban evil video games" view is helpful, but at the same time, neither is just turning a blind eye to the influence games can have on young developing minds.
Now, what will be really interesting will be the impact Virtual Reality will have when it hits the masses next year! Should keep the Daily Mail in front pages for a good few years that!