Yes…but the way the game handles this now is by double-punishing the player, with part of that punishment meted out for the crime of making part of the game too good. That’s what doesn’t sit right.
Let’s say we’re developing an Action game, for which AI and Level Design are vitally important, and Dialogue completely unimportant. And let’s say we choose, most unwisely, to devote 60% of development phase resources to Dialogue, and 20% each to AI and Level Design.
Yes, we’ve screwed up by lavishing too many resources on Dialogue…but not because bad dialogue can be expected to help an Action game (unless, perhaps, it’s Zero Wing), while good dialogue can only hurt it! No, it’s because we’ve left other, more important aspects of the game underdeveloped. Penalize the player for that, certainly…but there’s no need to double-penalize by also marking them down for the fine Dialogue.
(And what if the development studio has a Level 10 AI expert on staff, has just included a new AI feature in its latest engine, and is not making a AAA blockbuster…isn’t it possible that allocating just 20% of resources to AI might still be enough to exceed past performance and beat the competition in that department?)