i mean i can name a bunch of NES or older games that haven't aged well from a gameplay point of view but i don't think they amount to a "Rushmore" standard. like there's an understandable reason for limitations of hardware or ideas.

for me getting to this would mean that we've hit a point where what you're presenting can and has already been done better, you just don't do it. this isn't called out immediately, the game is praised, but over time the age is reflected more and more and there's no good excuse, it's just not good and you get left with "yeah that didn't hold up well." not because of generational limits but because the game itself is simply not that good or has such significant flaws to it that it's impossible to ignore.
edit: and i don't include firsts/early entries in a genre or style for it the same reasons too. if you got copied then hey, you got copied. odds are better versions of what you did will exist.

(this is also why i don't include Pokemon.)

---
"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.

What four games are on the "Video Games That Didn't Hold Up" Rushmore?

[none]

Dammit, we got modded by the Mod Boards...
Just mark eve....
...Dammit!

YOU'LL PAY FOR THIS CAPTAIN PLANET!

---
Head Lawyer for Sir Chris' Police Veggie Tales: The one thing that religion has done that grows no hate. That, and wine.

Luster Soldier: EXPOSED. An Icehawk production.