Games as far back as Space Quest did this.
Forget to pick up that object hidden in the escape pod near the beginning?
Too bad, you needed it here at the end.

GAME OVER.

I guess it's not really a gimmick, but Impossible Boss Battles.

You bust your ass getting through the game only to realize all the work you put it comes down to one fight with some fucking giant red scorpion (see Serious Sam for reference).

I can understand that a final showdown can sometimes be necessary, and that the main bad ass is a bigger and badder bad ass, but some games make the final enemy so much ridiculously harder than the rest of the game, making the imbalance of the whole thing a joke.

I note that Wizardry 4 does this, but unlike the examples mentioned, Wizardry 4 actually *warns* you about this. I note that Wizardry 4 is generally *not* friendly to the player, and by this point you are used to the game being player-hostile in many respects, but at least the developer was nice to warn you about this (with a strong hint that you might need something you didn't pick up). When the game does something rather uncharacteristic, a player is more likely to take notice. (Also, for the record, this game gives you 8 save slots, with the option to back them up to another disk, and doesn't autosave like other classic Wizardries, so saving in multiple slots is both possible and encouraged by the game.)

Yes, absolutely. Seems to be more of a problem with good old games and for some reason old adventure games seem to be the worst offenders here. I have no idea how you make a game that is so stripped off gameplay that it really centers around the story, then turn around and disrupt said story as much as possible.

Okay, I know it's all rather subjective and this may veer slightly into OT, but here I have to ask: why?
I'm a bit baffled by this, because there's enough XP in the world to not run out. For most people money should be a much harsher bottleneck. Ime the one time where lack of levels can be a problem is Dungeon of Lost Souls in a solo - at which point you're gated by all available trainers not bringing you above a certain level rather than a lack of XP.

How about boss fights that look winnable, but you have to lose in order to progress the game? (Dragon Warrior 7 has an example of this; the boss appears to be manageable, but has way to many HP (I believe around 64k) to be killed in a reasonable amount of time, and you are meant to lose the fight.)

If such a boss is to be included in the game, either:
* The boss should not take damage. All your attacks should miss or do no damage, and that should be obvious (so it works better in an RPG with damage pop-ups or miss text than in an action game).
* The boss should, at some point, use an attack that is unavoidable and that ends the battle. Dragon Quest 6 has a good example of this; one late-game boss will, on the 7th turn or so, use an attack that's guaranteed to paralyze your party, ending the battle and allowing the game to progress. (By the way, don't do this for fights that are supposed to be won unless there's a reasonable way to prevent this; Dragon Warrior 2's Bazuzu, who can, at low health, use an attack that wipes out your party. (DW2's example could have been mitigated by not making the boss respawn if it uses that attack, but they unfortunately didn't do that.)

Funny thing: In Lufia: The Legend Returns, there are boss fights you're meant to lose, but there's a reward if you somehow win. One such boss, in particular, is easily beaten on a casual first playthrough; I beat it on the first try without realizing you're supposed to lose.

This.

And autosaves with only one save-slot (and no manual saving)

Maybe I just want to max out my characters? (Incidentally, I think that the Darkside dragons should have been given generous money drops rather than none, so you could at least feel like you're making progress.) Or maybe I just want to have fun with combat after I've completed every task in the game?

For the Dungeon of Lost Souls, one solution (assuming you have Clouds installed and aren't playing Darkside alone) is to do the Dragon Tower first and use the +50 level fountain.

Legacy of Kain!!! XD

Am I the only asshole who spent all day trying to win that first fight?

First time I played that game I borrowed it from a coworker. Went to her the next day bitching about how hard it was. She was very subtle with her reply:

"You're supposed to lose moron. That's how you become a vampire. That's the point of the game."

Reminds me of Final Fantasy 2's first fight, but at least there it's obvious that you can't win. You're weak with no magic or other useful combat options, the enemies are powerful enough to kill your characters in one hit, and you can't damage the enemies without scoring a critical (which will still not do enough damage). Leveling up before the fight isn't an option, as this fight occurs before you get non-combat control of your party. Apparently, in at least the GBA version (but not all versions), actually winning the battle causes a crash.

Maxing out should work out in terms of levels, still. In terms of stats it's not really possible, anyways. The combat thing is a different story, though, I can see your point there. Didn't have much fun with combat, personally, so I didn't think of that. Thanks for clarifying.

The money situation was not particularly well thought through in that game, really.

Yes, that would work. However, temporary passive bonuses have their own spot on my most hated gimmick list, so I probably just caved a single Gorgon's head in, had a rest, rinse, repeat.

In french Morrowind, we had trap doors translated as if they were booby-trapped.

Tome 4 is a game/game engine I particularly like, but heck if the escort missions aren't complete rubbish.

Unwinnable states in adventure games or inability to save the game at will. These don't necessarily make me rage guit the game but I find them extremely annoying.

I'm not a fan of deliberately shoe-horned in nudity or sex scenes in games. If they make sense for the story or scene than fine, but to put it in gratuitously just makes me feel like the developer is trapped in the 90's and thinks that only 12 year old boys are playing their game.

I'm also not a fan of the trend towards procedurally generated games and permadeath, but that's a preference thing. It's okay for aspects of a game to be random, but I feel like making the whole game random is just lazy development being pawned off as a feature. It takes work to develop a story and design levels and I feel like this is just a cop out. I prefer having a set goal and a story to follow. I don't want to play a game forever, especially if it's just an endless loop of slightly different rooms.

Lack of adjustable difficulty is something that bothers me too. I don't mind a challenge, but some developers are ridiculous in what they believe a person playing their game should have to put in to be able to advance. I'm an adult, I have a job and kids, I don't have time to hone my skills at your game. I play games to relax and have fun not to work. Let me finish the game on my own terms please.

Also any modern game released without controller support annoys me. Tons of gamers have computers setup on tvs rather than at a desk. Again, I play games to relax, I want to be able to kick back on the couch and have fun playing a game. I don't want to have to be tied down to a desk somewhere to be able to enjoy my leisure activities. There is no excuse for this when most of the engines the developers are using basically add this functionality with little work on their part.