I'm sick and tired of having to find collectibles, it just gets tedious and all for some shitty reward. I'm not gonna hunt down and shoot 200 pigeons in Liberty City, just to unlock one Helicopter and a silver trophy, i need more motivation.

Your in a laboratory/military base/structure that is owned by some evil organization.
You reach a point in the game where you fight a boss or around where a major twist in the story occurs. Then suddenly: THE SELF DESTRUCT SYSTEM HAS BEEN ENGAGED AND YOU HAVE 4 MINUTES TO ESCAPE!! Then some of the most difficult enemies in the game are blocking your exit, or you need to fight yet another boss battle to escape. You will fail at least once, and then the timer resets and you need to run the gauntlet ONCE AGAIN.

Why does happen in every single Resident Evil game?

I'm going to agree with hot heart and on "good or evil" choices. The world is not that black and white, there got to be more options rather than "chop off this guy's head or donate money to his ill mother".

I mean, Dungeon and Dragons got an interesting alignment system, of nine degrees. I prefer more varied choices than rather 2, not only because this feels unrealistic, but also leaves no room for possible diversity in story, plot twists, it just doesn't make us think about our actions and the following consequences. Even a kid can understand the differences in the results of your choices in Fable, for example. That's shallow.

parts of games where im on defense instead of the constant offense im involved in the rest of the game(bioshock). Useless and pathetic friendly npcs! IVE SEEN FOUR MARINES IN HALO 3 KILLED IN A ROW BY A SINGLE GRUNT WITH A PLASMA PISTOL!! ON NORMAL!!!!! NORMAL GODDAMMIT!! i need a hug

I'm not exactly sure what the feature I'm thinking of is called, but it's definitely overused. I'll try to describe it. The feature I'm thinking of involves the stalking, aiming and shooting of enemies from the perspective of an unseen protagonist (you can only see his hands, really). The player is typically the animating force behind this protagonist, who assembles a veritable arsenal in the pursuit of some vague group of individuals known as "enemies." This game is usually played fromt the first-person, or "first-person" perspective. I daresay, if I have to play one of these "first person shooters," (my name for them), I'll simply scream.

I hate it when the game has a cool reward you can only get for 100% complete! I've beat the game and saved the world, why do I need all those stars to play as Luigi? SMG (Super Mario Galaxy not Submachine Gun) drives me insane! Why do I have to beat Lego Star Wars: The Complete Saga to use Super Force Powers? Why do I need all those gold mrdals for that acheivement? It makes me ANGRY!!!!!!!!

well i have a lot
1)timed events like i can deal w/ super mario bros because they give u a decent amount of time but in super mario galaxy i dont see y i have to find the bunnies in the snow place while under a time limit also those comets that time u while u go through the level
2)races not driving races i mean super mario galaxy boo race loz oot running man race and super mario 64 koopa race
3)escort events y in loz tp do i have to guide this stupid caravan that keeps catching on fire and having bombs dropped on it only for me to use my gale boomerang and have it catch on fire again
4)UNDERWATER LEVELS especially those that u have a breath meter like i can handle games where ur a fish(or a magic star from Pufftop) and u can breath underwater but when i have to get a stupid gold shell from penguins i gt annoyed
5)bad maps i kno im supposed to find hima by myself but could u give me an arrow or something so im not circling around cliffs looking for the path

o and dont think that from my above comment i dont like super mario galaxy i LOVE it but some parts get annoying
Captha:barbie castles

Quick-time events. They aren't gameplay at all, but sequences that render your controller as nothing more than a glorified TV remote. If I wanted to press a button to watch something happening on the screen, I'd rent a goddamn movie. That shit should be cutscene material, instead. It's especially worse in games where it essentially breaks from the action and changes it up from "take cover here, fire over there, dodge return fire, win" to "Press 'A,' win." One is the satisfying conclusion of skill and effort, the other is "Here, let us do that for you." Please, I'd rather not watch my game play itself for me.

Other than that, it's the obligatory vehicle section. In games where vehicles are already a normal part of the play experience, this isn't the case. But in games where vehicles act as a plot device to move the focus of action from one place to another ("We gotta take the fight to them, and OH CHRIST A LION GET IN THE CAR"), it's teeth-gnashing. The best example I can think of is Gears of War, especially because that combines the other facet I dislike, making parts of a single-player campaign function only well with two human players. Those vehicle sections were horrible because of how much a change of pace they were from the normal play, and even worse if you were playing solo, because it meant you had to utilize two different control schemes on your own (instead of not even enabling the AI partner to actually function like a partner? Really? Good show!).

I also would like to mention a disdain for simplistic choice systems when it comes to having morality as part of the gameplay. I'd really like more to it than a simple "Good choice, evil choice," especially with how often the choices really represent differing shades of grey. It's even worse when that's the difference of choice given for a consequence that is very ambiguous, such as some of the choices that can be made in series like Fallout (and the main questline in Fallout 3's The Pitt is a prime example of too simplistic a definition of the choice contrasting with the implications and consequences of each).

People understand what moral relativism is, even if they've never heard the term. Many people know the meaning behind the expression "Sometimes you gotta break a few eggs to make an omelette." Sometimes the better choice requires an ugly compromise, and I'd like to see greater depth in those choices. Plus, by extension, mechanics like the karma system in Fallout 3 are often implemented far too simplistically and often unrealistically. Why not enable the player to decide what his character's moral leaning is at the beginning, and then base it off that? That could add an interesting wrinkle of depth to the mechanic.

The "Dual Morality" Shtick. I really, really hate how game developers give you the option to be either the offspring of Buddha and Gandhi or the usurper of Sauron. Especially when ultimately no-one in the game is going to acknowledge what you end up being other than a stat screen and being an asshole 21 times and a saint 22 times means you're the Messiah (instead of schizophrenic).

This also extends when games actually include other choices, you have to also play as a psycho to be neutral, neutralizing good actions with evil ones (I'm looking at you, Bioware).