I think the main problem of Jaffe (and others too) is the thinking, that every game is for every player. Stuff like this is going into a romantic comedy and then complain it doesn't have enough action, or more similar to Jaffe's complaint: go into a mystery thriller and complain I need to follow so many characters and clue to understand the plot. Well, maybe a new action flix is more to the liking of the person, while the mystery fan might scoff at the superficial plot.
The same is true for games. I think it is easier to explain with puzzles: some games put puzzles in front of the player to progress. In olden times a whole genre, the point-and-click adventures, were based around a sequence of puzzles, which each locked away some progress in the main plot. but here comes the problem: if the puzzles are too easy, too obvious, the game feels hollow, without challenge. If the puzzles are too hard, the solutions too obscure, it may be frustrating, even infuriating. But what is too obvious or too far-fetched depends a lot on the person playing.
In Monkey Island in a puzzle you used a monkey as a monkey wrench. Some thought this a funny joke and intelligent puzzle which adds to their experience, while others think this is an absolutely stupid and frustrating puzzle. What is right here? Probably that for some players this makes the game great, while for others not.
So here we are, at the conclusion that not every game is for every gamer. I personally suck at platforming. I just can't get the timing right. So I know every platformer will have at some time a platforming challenge I cannot overcome. Instead of saying this is stupid game design, I choose to play diffferent games. That is a much better solution. Because I know, other players will love these platforming challenges and why should I diminish their fun by demanding all games platforming should be on the level of baby's first platformer (which probably still is too hard for me) and therefore become boring and unfun.
