1. Ditch the PG-13 BS
There's been a lot of chatter about this one on the internet since Fallout 3 came out, but sit down and relax, because I intend to settle this argument once and for all. See, Gamer A says, "Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas aren't true to the genre, because the player can't kill children." Gamer B says, "Dude, that is seriously messed up. You should not be allowed to harm children even in a virtual environment."
Developers say, "Look, it's not a big deal. There's no need to actually kill a child."
And a senator that has never seen a game says, "Hibbity Jibbity, games make you eat people." All of them are right. That's the sad truth. Even the senator has a small nugget of truth, unlike the quotes I used. How then can such an argument be settled? Well, it can't. It can't because we lack the shared definitions with which to find a greater truth. I say videogames are art, and art should never be censored. You say they're entertainment, and entertainment should be censored. I present studies disproving the implied effect of viewing violence, you present studies proving it. Nothing gets solved; mostly because we've both forgotten what we're talking about. So what's my point? Are cheerleaders being sexualized a controversial thing? Yes, but they are in Madden games, because they're in the NFL. Is the coldblooded murder of a foreign national a bad thing? Yes, but you can do that all you want in MW3, because that's what's tactical response teams do.These things are bad, but they are necessary to capture the spirit of the game that is being developed. Without them, the game would work, just not as well. Making a game about the lawless wasteland that demands people follow your presupposed moral code is like making a basketball game in which players are not allowed to shoot from mid-court. Yes, the decision probably only affects the 10% of players who choose to shoot the moment they touch the ball. But those who do want to shoot from mid court find themselves enraged that you have imposed such an arbitrary restriction on them. Only in Fallout it's much worse, because the player is supposed to be interacting with a world devoid of laws and standards. The freedom to do as you wish goes with post apocalyptic gaming in the same way that the freedom to do exactly what you're told goes with FPS gaming. Look, I don't want to massacre a kid in every town I visit. And, there are plenty of other mature options that were taken out of the new Fallout games, such as the ability to be a prostitute, join up with organized crime, round up slaves for money, and lots lots more. The short of it is, the game isn't complete without total freedom. And the new additions to the series don't have the same level of freedom that the originals did, because Bethesda understands that gaming is becoming a younger and younger hobby. Fine, we get that. You gotta make a buck, and an M rating is not the way to reach a wide audience since many companies won't even stock M games. All I'm asking is: would it kill you to push the envelope a little, or at least release adult rated DLC that would let us play the game we want to play, not the game we're being forced to play?