The problem with your argument is false equivalence. If you went back and wrote down a book in a language that has only 30 words, would it ever reach the point of Shakespeare, or any of the "classics"?
Or if you went back, before anybody knew of anything to paint with, and nobody had ever had an idea to use a brush, or draw anything other than a stick figure, would that be equivalent to something from da Vinci or whatever painter you are fond of?
Of course not, that is fucking ridiculous. Although those aren't perfect analogies, the same idea applies. Technology and systems can hinder ability to make art, and technological advances, can make all things that came before it moot aside from historical perspective.
One day a VR plug that goes into the back of our brain might make all movies and video games obsolete. Sure, they might still be entertaining but would absolutely pale in comparison to what was coming out. If you enjoy the previous forms of things, that is fine, nobody is going to be bothered by that, but if all other people have their bar collectively raised because the art is progressed technologically by such a wide margin, well, too bad you shouldn't be crying about it.
Same idea, the real problem, in regards to video games is that people have had their bars raised in some aspects (graphics, skill-floor), and lowered in most others (gameplay, depth, skill-ceiling, meaningful decisions, performance, etc.), this is probably from the huge surge of casuals, as I am sure you realize.
If you want to make video games great again, you should be arguing that the reasons people like modern video games more is because of, fairly arbitrary, and shallow reasons, not some fallacious platform of, "it is just as good as when it came out guys!"