I love gen 3 & 4 games, but I'm just awful at them.

File: 1466735912087.jpg (13KB, 391x391px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 391x391px

>>3315302
It depends how you define 'easyfun' games.
The second gen is about getting 'easyfun' - you pop a cartridge, turn on the power switch and play till the end of your try. Gain more points than you did - pure arcade fun. If you want some more complicated second gen fun, you should try Intellivision, Colecovision; their games generally are more complicated than Atari 2600 games, but still they are easy to play.
At the other side you MUST read manuals. As for Atari 2600, game modes are represented with numbers and you are going to have no clues what the Game 9 in Space Invaders for Atari 2600 stands for. It's fun mode though. As for Intellivision, just look how many buttons controller has.
Early NES (or rather Famicom) games without MMCs and other expansions on the cartridge board are pretty similar to second gen games - they don't share tons of text and have pretty arcade nature if they aren't ports of arcade games. I'd say, NES is the way to go if you want to play the earliest games but you don't want to read manuals. NES cartridges had more memory, enough for some in-game gameplay explanations. NES is the GOAT console for me because of its wide variety of games. Master System is worth noting, but I'm not master in this system subject.
As for the fourth gen, your guide to 'easyfun' games is the Genesis. Sega was the strong acrade company and many Genesis games share arcade nature. Don't get me wrong - SNES is a good console, but its strong side is RPGs, if you're excited by tons of text you'd better even try old computers with interactive fiction games (IF games aren't tied to any system though).
The fifth gen is about Playstation for a one player.

Games are even more fun if you have someone to play with. If you have, you should definitely try Nintendo 64, because it is constructed for multiplayer fun. Goddamn Video Olympics for Atari 2600 are pretty fun with one more player.

And I didn't talk about computer games yet.

>>3315302
Kirby games is the definition of "easyfun" games

>>3315356
Thanks!
>>3315362
Are you trolling me? That's some ninja gaiden bullshit right there.

Games around this time fit the "Nintendo Hard" trope. Platformers and other action games were fairly short, so developers tried to pad out their length with sheer difficulty so the player would feel like they got their money's worth.

Back in the day, you just had to keep replaying until you eventually got good, or had memorized enough of the game's patterns and layouts to be able to anticipate everything that's thrown at you. e.g. Contra may take only 20 minutes to beat, but if it's your first time playing, you'll have to sink 20+ hours into learning every stage inside-out before you could survive it.

You're probably thinking about it wrong. Think more like arcades and less like later console games: it's about self-improvement, and the completing is just the bonus at the end when you get very good at it. If you don't enjoy getting better by itself, you're gonna have some trouble with a lot of these games.

>>3315302
Pro tip: Turbografx has a ton of easy games. Snes has some too

Nes and Genesis tend to have the hardest games, though Genesis games usually have an option menu to change settings

>>3315302
SNES games are easy as fuck. You must suck if you can't beat any of them.