It's a different type of difficulty though. You have to invest the time into a game to figure it out and when you maybe only got 2 games a year this was perfectly fine. But if you play these games today and just bounce off them and move on to something else then it's hard to appreciate them. I find myself doing it myself with emulation. There's just so many games to play these days that I have to force myself to invest my time in these games and not get distracted.
If the basis for appreciating these old games is "we had nothing else to play" and if you play them today, you have to force yourself to play them today, it sounds like that the criticism is valid. No good game needs these criteria to be worth playing.
Super Meat Boy is a good example of what I mean by a different sort of difficulty as it's so difficult that there's no way it would have worked as a NES game. However it introduces a lot of modern sensibilities so even though its horrendously tough you are never put back more than 10-20 seconds worth of progress.
Super Meat Boy may not cause you to lose much progress upon death, but the all-abundant roguelikes/roguelites are not. The same goes for a number (not the majority, but a significant part) of recent RTS games without in-mission saves. You can easily lose half an hour or more if you fail a mission.
I'm from 1996 and even so, i can appreciate what every system released brought to the table in some capacity or another. Seems that the dude is one of those sportsbro men who buy stuff like FIFA and other crappy titles...
I figured you'd be older, being the resident Jaguar fan and all.
I actually got into the Jaguar after seeing stuff such as jvgsjeff video showcasing 50 titles for the system during my middle school years. That and Rayman
To put a different spin on it. Growing up in England I had friends who had the NES around the very early 90s\late 80s and most people owned Mega Drives. I owned a Master System and while for the most part games look graphically better than the NES, the NES is the superior machine for games. I would struggle to name 20 must play Master System games, the NES it's easy.
I don't get the point of equating the NES itself with NES games. Yes, there were bad NES games but that doesn't mean that the whole system and all other games for it were bad. There have been poorly-made games in pretty much every system and this makes as much sense to me as complaining about the PSX because so many games for it just sucked. There were NES games that I think are genuinely good and even hold up well. Some don't hold up as well but they're impressive when you consider the thought put into designing them or making certain ideas work with the technical limitations.
I also don't think the NES itself was bad. It's not the best system, but it's not the worse. It was clearly playable and popular enough to have brought us masses of influential and interesting games.
About the guy's age, I honestly don't care about that. Your age doesn't make you more (or less) qualified to discuss something. By that same token, most people alive today wouldn't be able to have opinions about silent films or classic books because they were released before they were born. What can happen, and what might be happening here, is someone just not having the nostalgia and the habit of playing games with these constraints or conventions. I'll admit that some older games just haven't aged well and I can't play them because the graphics give me headaches or the gameplay is poorly executed. But again, that doesn't mean all games were identical and it's not an issue specific to the NES.