Father Time said:
Yahtzee you do not get to have a holier than though stance when it comes to the child killing mods.
Remember the Fable 2 review you had?
You expressed a desire to kill your own in game child.
Anyway I liked the joke "what if he had a table for a brain" or something like that.
I've done that in rpg's before (not before saving though).
That seemed to be more of a jab at claims the game made of being free and whatnot. He used it only to point out an inconsistency in the game, and, more importantly, to make the point that no game will ever be entirely free. Basically, I doubt he was seriously criticizing the game for not allowing him to murder children and marry his dog. On the Skyrim patches, I believe Yahtzee's points were that, for one thing, the developers did not intend for the protagonist to kill children, for what that's worth. The more important (and subtly put) point, though, was that the patch is not being made of any sensible reason. Sure, you can make an argument for the ability to kill children-I remember one of the comments on the Extra Punctuation article read that a dragon killing everyone in a village except the children doesn't make sense (whether or not that sort of event is in the game, I don't know)-but it goes without saying that that is absolutely NOT why people want the patch. People want the patch just for the sake of having the patch. Same reason for wanting the nude patch, in fact. Putting the patch out just for the sake of doing it, that's bad reasoning right there, and it does sort reflect the community in a negative light.
P.S. To clarify, he didn't express a desire to kill, so I really don't think he's holding a hypocritical stance on this subject.