If they saw the 3E selection of races, I can assure you that's exactly what they'd say.
How so? What's wrong with 3E races, from the perspective of a younger player?
Tieflings and Dragonborn probably save matters, but it's unhelpful to have halflings and not, say, kobolds.
I kind of see D&D races as coming in two waves: the first being the traditional Tolkien and mythology inspired, the second being derived more from media like video games and anime, as well as books that are influenced by such media. The transitional periods seems to be 3.5, and becoming more solidified with 4E (with dragonborn and tieflings in the PHB). Anyhow, I would think that the halfling/kobold preference divide would have something to do with these two waves. This is not to say that all older players prefer halflings and all younger players prefer kobolds, but rather that tastes are developed by influences.
Speaking for myself, I never got into video games (except for the occasional app or game of tetris) - I generally don't like them. Similarly to anime, and a lot of "geek culture" media. My taste influences are more from books and mythology, so tend to prefer the first wave races and dislike the more recent stuff, (with a few exceptions: I like aasimar/deva and genasi, for instance).
As discussed above, I also think in terms of "thematic tones" vs. "full color palette/anything goes," and generally prefer the former - although can enjoy the latter, if done well. By way of example, I would contrast Talislanta and the Forgotten Realms. Talislanta has dozens of races, but somehow it all makes sense - the setting was designed with that in mind, so it feels organic. The FR, on the other hand, seems to want to be too many things at once: both a classic D&D world, but also an anything goes gonzo affair. I still like the Realms and it works fine from a purely gaming perspective, but it doesn't have the same cohesive aesthetic that I appreciate from a worldbuilding perspective.
