I don't think He's bashing. Its an opinionated list. I agree with most of them. I agree, he could have presented a little better, but he seems frustrated because games don't have to be this way. His summary is that companies have sold out to the dollar. They are making choices that yield gameplay to the lowest common denominator and it shows in very frustrating ways.

One I would add is game bugs. I play LOTRO and every update they release more bugs than they do fixes. Its becoming near unplayable. For the last month I'm playing 5 minutes then logging out in disgust. Sure, the game can be fun, but it doesn't HAVE to be that way. I'm not frustrated that there are bugs, I'm frustrated that some are 5 years old and STILL haven't been fixed. At this point, its a conscious decision to NOT make the game the way the customer wants. I see this in his review. He didn't play one game and scream that blood covering the screen is the end of the world. He showed several examples and listed it as a pet peeve. How is a pet peeve trolling, bashing, or hating?
I tend to find the screen-blood a cop-out. I don't think it adds anything, and for many it tends to detract from the game... yet it makes its way into so many games.

The most opinionated point IMHO was the one on experience. I like the XP in most games. They even added a tad of RPG into NOLF2. Wasn't great, but wasn't horrible either. if done well, I see it as an enhancement.. but this is opinionated.

So, I'd add to my pet peeve list:

Bugs (typically the game is rushed and known issues make it out of the door). I would much rather them wait and release a more polished initial offering. Again, its a dollars decision to move the game out faster which equals more frustration for the end user.

Lack of a quick save. I'm not a checkpoint fan. If its not a survival horror where save spaces are a form of inventory management, then it needs quicksaves. Even then, I'm a little frustrated with the save systems of SH games. I guess its an age thing, but I can't devote unlimited time to the keyboard any more, so being able to quickly get in and out are becoming more key for me.

Long intro's. I own a few games that the opening cinematics either have to be skipped every single time (multiple logos and videos)... or bypassing is disabled and you have to hack/delete files to just launch the game. IMHO, the game should launch instantly to a screen where an option exists to view all the purty pictures and videos. I always want to watch them once... rarely ever do I want to watch them more than that.

Repetition. This is a hard one to explain, as sometimes repetition is enjoyable when done well. But, when done poorly, its the worst on the list. Doom3 was a horrendous offender of this. I never understood the hype of this game. Monster attacks from the front. Guess what? Turn around, one is now magically behind you. Repeat 7,000 times (wait, the game wasn't that long...), Repeat 300 times and you are at last boss. Very boring. Very unimaginative. Perhaps it was the hype, because its extra frustrating when you figure out the formula so quickly and the highly touted game is just an exercise in finishing up so you can uninstall.

I think game designers need to remember that the key to a great game isn't to trick the end user... its to entertain them. I went to a movie the other day and it was a sort of "who-done-it" movie. The end villain was someone that they never EVER introduced until the very end. The appeal to so many is to follow the clues and figure it out before the reveal. In this case, they gave the audience the finger and said, "you were ALL wrong, it was this guy we haven't told you about yet!"... I feel many games are using this same tactic but with gimmicks, trickery, and features not too many are fond of. I feel like, for some, the motto could easily be, "sure, our game sucks, but at least we covered your screen with blood so you can't see it!". Not being able to SEE the game is only the second pet peeve of that mantra ;)