>>717702696
>look it up it's a real thing for a lot early games
Yes, but "retro" is not a design philosophy, for example: Mega Man 4, Little Samson and Holy Diver are NES games, very similar on paper yet different in practice.
>should be able to beat the game first try if you are good enough
That's an oxymoron. What determines that the player is "good enough" in a 2D action platformer for example? Motor skills, observations skills, reaction time, legacy skill and knowledge of the game itself. What if the player is a complete newbie that doesn't even know the layout of a controller? Should he be able to beat the game on a first try? If so, how? Are medusa heads from castlevania unfair because the player doesn't know what they do before he touches them? Are pits unfair because they insta kill you? Are fighting games unfair because the veteran players will destroy everybody else? Are multiplayer FPS games unfair because those who know the layouts of maps and properties of weapons have advantage? Difficulty is also not the be-all and end-all of games. I don't think there's anything wrong with casual baby games if they respect fundamentals.