I played a bunch of old NES games on an emulator in the early '00s. Two things stood out: (1) the graphics really were pretty lame, and (2) games I was addicted to as a kid seemed a lot more tedious as an adult.
Not saying the classics don't stand the test of time, but some of those old games are better as a memory.
For me there has been huge leap between the NES and the SNES in terms of graphics and game complexity.
Most of SNES games have aged much better than their NES counterparts, Super Metroid, Zelda, Chrono Trigger are still terrific games that I could play even today, while I agree that most NES games feel too old.
Yes, I've thought that the SNES, and to some degree, the Genesis, is where you can go back and find a lot of stuff in the "normal" line to play that holds up pretty well. I've gotten my kids (7 & 5) to respond to some SNES stuff, but anything earlier they find uncompelling.
I can't entirely disagree.
For context, my first console was an Intellivision, so, no, this is not because my first console was a SNES. I did own one for a while... in the early 21st century, long after the PS2 was established.
I think some of it is just that the limitations of the medium were just so shocking prior to that. The Atari era basically couldn't have text; every text you see on the 2600 is freakishly expensive. The Nintendo era was still counting every letter. The SNES era may still be terribly constrained by modern standards, but at least you could make pictures that were recognizable, play recognizable sounds, use text without too much fear, include more variations in play without too much effort, etc. There's a handful of games prior to that that work miracles with the resources they have (Super Mario 3 isn't "just" a classic, it's legitimately amazing for the hardware).
I'd point out that even the people putatively writing Indie games with "old school aesthetics" almost never hold themselves to the limitations of the Nintendo era or before. There are some games that come reasonably close to SNES aesthetics, though.
Probably because the SNES was where I'd say "modern" games came into being. By this I mean games with complex plot and/or diverse game mechanics etc. The NES had games where we started to see that, like Final Fantasy or Super Mario 3, but the hardware was super limited and the NES was in a lot of ways more like an extension of the old arcade systems, while IMO the SNES was where Nintendo had something that was powerful enough to make games that were substantially different from arcade games.
I was just cheesing out, getting excited about playing Final Fantasy again, and then I remembered the process of buying 99 health potions, and how exceedingly tedious it was. I'm not sure that I'd have the patience to do that again as an adult.
Pro tip for Final Fantasy that I still remember:
One of the easiest parties to play through the game with is 3 Fighters and 1 Red Mage. You can get through most of the fights with minimal damage, and the Red Mage has what you need for boss fights and the occasional enemy that is strong against physical damage but weak against certain magic. You'll find yourself never needing to buy 99 potions.
I did the same thing when a bunch of emulators were coming out in the late 90's and early 00's and my big takeaway was that the majority of games from my childhood were not very good, but a few games such as Galaga and Ms Pacman and a handful of other arcade games have stood the test of time very well.
I've noticed this too with a lot of games - nostalgia filters are a real thing. The original Deus Ex is a good example. The story is amazing, but pretty much everything else has aged like milk.
I mostly agree with you, but I wonder if it feels worse because of the emulation and controller/keyboard. If I can get my hands on one I definitely will though if it's less than $100 (AU tax).
Not saying the classics don't stand the test of time, but some of those old games are better as a memory.