I wouldn't say it is a "serious design issue", just a lazy solution to bad design.

Sometimes they do.
[url=https://www.gog.com/game/consortium_the_master_edition][2]

While these situations usually make the game HARDCORE enough for Real Gamers [tm] (sarcasm), which is a failure of design because it doesn't add anything to the experience, I'd love to see more games where it's done on purpose and done well.

Competently done unwinnable situations, supported by a solid save/rollback system, can comprise a meta-puzzle and be framed as playing with causality, exploring relationships between characters (friendly or adversarial depending on minute changes), figuring out what makes people tick, reflecting on the human condition and on life itself.

Like, normally, you'd want to save anywhere, but there are (roguelite) games which don't allow saves on demand because occasionally failing individual tasks is a major part of the game, experience being conveyed that would be lost with save-on-demand. You can't really play a grand strategy "properly" if you reload until you win every single battle, because coping with unforeseen setbacks is a part of the game. Similarly, I don't think you could play a genius schemer in an adventure if it can't be lost, you can do no wrong, and the gameplay consists of throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks.

For example,
these books would make the bestest adventure evar, but only if there's no handholding, implicit or explicit, and (spectacular) failure is actually an option.

The game "Takeshi's Challenge" is infamous for having several of those, probably intentionally (and not a stupid design mistake, like it's often the case), but it was designed by a man who despised gamers and wanted them to suffer, so it might not a very useful example ^^

But yeah, the whole "you missed something at the beginning, so now you have to replay 8 hours of completely linear gameplay" is a no-go for me.
Having consequences to my choices that will lead me to a "bad end" in a non-linear game, I'm okay with. I like visual novels that rely on that mechanic, and it works because a-the game is non linear, and thus doing another playthrough will allow me to "explore" the game and/or its story, and b-I get an actual conclusion to the story, even if it is not the "happy ending".
But simply being blocked from continuing and having to replay the exact same things for 10+ hours in the hope that I will get it right this time, with no real challenge since I already solved all the riddles? Nooope! I'll simply drop the game and play another one.
Even when I was playing my first adventure games in the 80', when I was a student and had plenty of time, I thought dead ends sucked, and I like them even less nowadays.


Worst thing : If you don't play with a walkthrough, you might not even KNOW you're in a dead end. And so you try for hours to unlock the car with a banana and 3 bubblegums, using every one of your 40 items on every pixel of the 12 rooms you have access to. You won't know you could have picked the car key from the jacket that you can find behind the potted plant before the professor leaves the house, in the first 20 minutes of the game. You'll just know you're stuck...

Wasn't that a gameplay issue already brought up and solved by Lucasarts back in the day?

EDIT: Wha.. I didn't see those replies before.. super ninja'd

So, if there would a game, where you have at the start of the game 50 inventory spots but 100 keys in front of you and you have 50 doors in front of you that can be opened with the right key, but they lock after you pass through and the key diapered. And you would need to walk for 5 minute for each door. Than you would this great and challenging, knowing that you have to play the whole thing over and over and over again, till you got the right combination?

(Finding that combination may take around 250 hours.)

For me would this a waste of time, but for you this would be the greatest gamer ever created?

In adventure games I think it's a design flaw, and I read several people stating that they're staying away from the Sierra classics because of it. Luckily the games are pretty damn short once you know what to do, so covering lost ground by loading an old save doesn't really take that long. As long as you try to be thorough and you save properly, then I think it should be ok.
Luckily several of the classic Point and Clicks don't have this problem (Fate of Atlantis and Monkey Island as far as I know)

Another similar situation is in rpgs with very open ended character design, where it's possible to create a character that is too weak to complete the game. Or at least, a character that will have real difficulty finishing the game. Games such as Fallout and perhaps Neverwinter Nights. This I don't a problem with. I think it just comes with the territory.

I'm playing Fate of Atlantis at the moment, and I was surprised to find that you can actually lose. At one point the Nazis captured me (while sneaking on a sub) and I was faced with a 'game over' screen. It was quite a surprise :)

My favorite example is the beginning Tutorial sequence in Half-Life. After going through the tutorial, a scientist goes to open a door where you start the game.

However, if you kill the scientist, he would not be able to open the door. I did this once and found out just how 'smart' the game was. While I could not exit the room, turrets came down from the ceiling and began firing at me, attempts to dodge the gunfire were futile, I eventually died and had to go through the intro all over again.

Very, VERY clever on the part of the designers.

'Dead Man Walking Simulator' might make for a depressing game genre.

You clearly have no love for the zombies. :)

I was going to say "I don't remember playing as the zombie that often", but then I remembered Stubbs the Zombie.
And in The Suffering I think you were on Death Row so that kinda counts right?
(for the other possible definition of dead man walking)

That's why it's so good most RPGs have an option to play with a pre-made character/team. I usually do that when playing an RPG I'm not familiar with for the first time. If I don't know the game, the system, then I would most likely make a broken character and have to start over eventually. This way at least I know I'm not screwed from the start. It's like in any tabletop RPG- if you're playing the game for the first time, a good DM will help you make your character, not leave you to your own devices and then laugh when your worthless character dies.

What about "The Nameless One" in Planescape's Torment?
Yeah, most definitely. Several games give you an option of having characters generated based on your style of game-play which is pretty cool. Some people really like going through the motions of tricking out their characters, I typically like to get into the meat of the game. Giving game players this option is pretty insightful on the part of the developers.

Yeah, and I learned this the hard way with Oblivion. I created a custom class without understanding how the counter intuitive leveling system works, and found myself with a character that couldn't keep up with the level scaling of the enemies. It reached a point where I was practically useless and it took forever to take down a single monster :P

Ouch. Point-proof that nobody likes a "know-it-all". :)