My problem with RWS's position on Postal 2 isn't that their idea is flawed. I think the idea of letting people roam free in a truly ordinary sandbox environment with the option and means to be violent - but not necessarily any outside incentive to be - is a brilliant idea. The Thief series has actually always done a pretty good job with that, encouraging you to get through the game with as little enemy contact as possible, and I've always greatly enjoyed that. And that's how they pitch it; "oh, you don't HAVE to be violent, you could just go about your day, it's all the player's choice."
The problem is, that's crap. I've played Postal 2 - not very long and certainly not to the end - but violence is thrust upon you in the first 15 minutes of the game. You go to the bank, the bank gets robbed. Thieves are shooting cops, cops are shooting thieves, and you're very likely to get shot and die if you don't fire back. Could you choose not to fight anyway? Sure, you could do that in ANY FPS, but it's absurd to pretend that the game isn't encouraging you to fight. Dying IS considered a "lose" condition, after all. Similarly, you go to the RWS office in the game to pick up your paycheck, and the office is stormed by weapon-wielding protesters. Same situation, fight or die.
The only real difference between Postal 2 and any other FPS is that they push the boundaries of how much you can do to your enemies to unnecessarily violent limits. And sure, I'll grant you that you could get through the game without ever peeing on anybody or lighting them on fire. But there's no moral question of "peace or violence" put forth by Postal 2, and I find it thoroughly dishonest of them to run around pretending that there is.