Truly Horrid Design Choices

So I've been gaming quite a bit recently and I have found a few design choices which I don't ever want to see again. It's not that the games weren't good or anything like that, it's just that certain aspects of the game took them from great to decent, and that's sad.
My first example is a simple one which comes from playing Dead Rising recently. It's a fun game for the most part with a relatively intriguing basis, but honestly I get irked because the game expects you to level and die and restart the game several times so that you're a high enough level to really do anything at all. While it is possible to beat the game without leveling up all that much, it really is a murderous difficulty curve, but then, that's something that makes sense for the game. No, the thing which really does Dead Rising in is that you can't do anything so much as hop while using the radio. This leaves your nipples right in prime zombie biting territory without so much as a complaint from you. That combined with the obscenely small text for any and all messages you receive on said radio just becomes infuriating.
Really I suppose this should be a retrospective for all such design choices, see the inventory screen in Alone in the Dark or any number of other examples that have frustrated so many of you. If you have a screen which requires players to give their full attention to it, indeed which sometimes takes up the whole screen, PAUSE THE ACTION! Do not kill your player because he had to do something which is vital for game play and plot advancement. Killing your player for playing the game usually results in broken controllers and pawned games.
Another one comes from the original Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. Your AI doesn't need to be flawless, but at least make them competent at the skills they're given. I can't tell you how often I've had my bomb tech step on a mine she went to pick up. It's infuriating. This goes for games like Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion too. The NPC's that fight with you are true imbeciles sometimes, especially one which you HAVE to rescue by the name of Farwil Indarys. Now, technically you don't have to save him, but you really should, and his friend too. Another is the son of the fighter's guild master. Having NPC's who charge into battle when you're a rogue is one of the most maddening aspects of the whole game. If you make an NPC warrior who needs to survive with the PC, make him competent or don't bother making him.
Lastly I'm going to pull out a game which is one of my favorites for the 360 despite everything. Assassin's Creed is such a terrible game that is so good I can't ever stop loving it. It's gorgeous, it's a fantastic storyline, and it's complete shite in gameplay. I have never been angrier than when I'm chased down by powerful NPC guards because I rode my horse at a speed that will get me to where I'm going before tomorrow. I don't like being made to endure long and tedious travel sequences and while I find the evironment entertaining and pretty I think all designers with gorgeous, expansive environments should take a page from Shadow of the Colossus. Let me ride through it as fast as I damn well please because pretty becomes piss when I can't get where I'm trying to quickly.
I know that's only three complaints, alright three and a half, from a handfull of games, but these three have come up more and more often these days. So let me summarize. DO NOT have elements which make the player defenseless and don't pause the game, DO NOT have retarded NPC's who can't even pick their noses without the PC's help, and DO NOT force gameplay to lengthen so the player can "truely appreciate your gorgeous environment." It's bad design and you will sell less games for it.
Thank you. This rant has been brought to you by the Umbrella Corporation, our business is life itself. (I'll talk about dialogue another time, bloody RE.)

this appeared as a moral dilemma

Right, so I know it's been a long while since my last post. I have no excuse for myself and I'm tired of talking about my ineptitude when it comes to updating regularly. Needless to say, I'm here now.

So the subject of this particular post is one that I know has been discussed before, but I feel needs a little fresh blood. Games in recent years have taken to giving players a "moral choice," but the problem is that there are really only ever two ways to go. Either you're the pinnacle of right and justice or you're the darkest being ever to draw breath in this world. Nice in theory, and works for Star Wars and it's ilk, but for games with any degree of character depth, this is just rather pathetic. How can all of our actions be boiled down into two extremes? I don't like the saint or Satan approach to morals in life, so why would I enjoy it in games. Now, I did just admit that I'm okay with the simplistic moral axis in games like Star Wars, most specifically the Knights of the Old Republic games. Still, I think that having a little gray area would benefit this game just as much as it would benefit any other.

Now, why would I bother bringing this up. It's a fact of gaming, just like random, pointless quick time events. I cannot change it any more than I could reach up and take my place among the Olympians. Well, that's just it, I think we need to figure out a few ways to make the morals of a game as gray as it's modern graphics; predictable joke. Let us say for the moment that we have a game which we'll call The Adventures of Timmy. Timmy, obviously our protagonist, will have a moral choice system in the game. The norm of the day is that Timmy will be given a series of dialogue interactions in which he will respond with obvious good or evil consequences. For example, Bertha: Oh, my Timmy, you have grown so quickly. Timmy: A) Oh, thank you. Yes, I certainly am getting tall now. B ) Fuck off, wide load, I need to get outta this place. This is an extreme example, but then, a lot of games are quite extreme in this regard. Now, let's play this same scene out again, this time with a legit dialogue. Bertha: Oh, hello Timmy. You're getting so big these days. Timmy: A) Yeah, I'm already 6'2". B ) I guess. What've you been up to? Now where in this was the moral line? Some might say, oh, it's obvious, in one he agreed in the other he didn't, but didn't he act relatively nicely in both. I don't think not having an opinion is an evil act. Perhaps not polite, but are all impolite people evil? I doubt it greatly.

There are some solutions to this sort of thing. We could try to pull a Fable 2 and have more than one moral axis. In Fable 2 there is a purity/corruption axis and a good/evil one. This works to a degree, but I think it's still a little too obvious and extreme. All of my roommates and friends played Fable 2 and they all decided on their alignment on both axises before they'd even begun playing, generally because of the physical manifestation of the alignments.

How do we get past this. Well, one thing that I've thought about is not letting players know their alignment. Certain actions will be obvious, of course, like killing innocents, but some could be much more subtle and still affect the alignment. What's more, players can't just pull up a menu and see how good or evil or whatever they are. I think if you combine multiple axises with the hidden alignment there could be a lot more variation. Still, I think there should be no more than three axises. I really just think any more than that will become both redundant and confusing for players and programmers alike. Will this be effective, I really don't know, but I'm hoping so. I'm still working on my portfolio game, but under Zac's suggestion I'm looking into a simpler game to start off our little partnership with.

So that's all I've got in me this day. Let me know what you think about my thoughts on this one.