The funny thing is that some of the ones complaining about the older generation judging them will one day do the same thing to those younger than themselves.

Maybe they know that skill isn't everything? Or even better - that skill means *nothing* if it doesn't improve your experience?

I actually agree with Rich 100%. He's not making himself look superior. He's just a 33 year old man who's been gaming all his life, just like how I'm a 29 year old gamer who's been gaming for 25 years. It's not like he gave up gaming 20 years ago and is making observations. He still plays games today and is making these observations based on his own experiences and these kids are further proof of his accusations. I'll go over these arguments one at a time.

Holding gamers' hands

 Do you know who also complained about games holding your hand too much? Zelda producer Eiji Aonuma. He admitted that his very own The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword was guilty for doing this and has stressed the need for future Zelda titles to not do this as much. What's funny is Zelda probably does a lot less than other games.

Easy Games

Yes, games today are too easy. Based on my own experiences, games have gotten increasingly easier as the generations have passed. While I feel that the Castlevania games and Ninja Gaiden games on the NES were too difficult, games today tend to be much easier than they should be, especially given how short they are compared to just one generation ago. I think the 16-bit era had a perfect balance of having games that required skill and provided challenge but didn't torture you as much as the NES games.

Meaningful Game Endings

I'll also argue that yes, finishing a game 20-25 years ago did mean something. If you beat a difficult game back then like Contra, chances are you'll probably remember that very day 20 years later. As further proof of this, statistics have shown that a lot of gamers these days don't even finish a lot of games. It's not that they can't. The motivation just isn't there. This was an exuse many publishers have used when explaining why their gave have gotten increasingly shorter over the previous decade.

Gamer Skills

While I don't speak for all gamers today, I will say this. If you can't beat Glass Joe in Mike Tyson's Punch-Out, then you do suck at gaming. Punch-Out has some of the most intuitive controls imaginable, meaning that anytime you mess up is your own fault, not the game's fault. When I was 5 or 6 years old, I only lost to Glass Jow once. That was deliberately done because I had beaten him so many times and wanted to see what his sprite animation looked like when he won. I could understand if a firstime player lost to Piston Honda or King Hippo, but not Glass Joe. The truth is, a lot of the more challenging 2D games tested kids' hand and eye coordination a lot more than the modern 3D games. For a lot of these old games, especially Contra or Castlevania, or NInja Gaiden, you had to be good at them in order to win.

Mainstream Games

As for mainstream games, they are made to appeal to the largest number of people possible. This means that gameplay isn't always made for the most dedicated gamer. It's not just gameplay either. The overall look and feel of a lot of these games reflect this. Marketing reflects this. Ever wonder why there are so many dark haired males protagonists with the 5 o'clock shadow? It's what a lot apparently sells.

You also mentioned that you started gaming in 1996. The thing is a lot of those PS1 games and N64 will get scrutinized by both young and older gamers alike. This was at a time when 3D gaming was in it's infancy and older games like Resident Evil and Tomb Raider have aged rather poorly. Still, what Rich is saying and what I'm saying is that kids today are not challenged enough with their games. I think it's a much bigger issue of old vs. new. If a game fails to challenge the player, then that player will lose interest in that game and thsat franchise very quickly. If a game is not compelling enough, then what will keep they player involved? Also, about the last thing you said. Not all the people in the videogame hated the game. Some of them, even the bad ones liked the game and wanted to play more of it.

I've played games for 20 years now. While I haven't enjoyed everything the NES and the SNES had to offer, I do admit that both consoles did have their prominent games that still hold up until this day. However, this elitism that dictates that every game back then is superior in any form to those nowadays is ridiculous.

I've been playing video games since the 5th gen (PS1) and I can't even go back and play any of the games on there. Almost all of them are dated and didn't age well at all (of course this is to be expected from games made in the 90's) Anyway games today are far better than anything in the 90's.