I thought I'd give this a try vs. slash his throat from the start, as I myself have been wondering about a distinction that may be healthy for all of us to make:
a. Criticisms of the game that are just (some elements that truly did age poorly)
b. Criticisms that come from a misunderstanding of the series' vision (chiefly, with reference to the contemporary)
My read on the article, in a general sense:
1. Merely to state is not to defend
He points out that some of the supporting cast in Shenmue I is weak. Potentially, sure. But with each example (Tom and "Snore-zomi"-- truly devastating), he effectively says "they're bland and don't tell me otherwise." To say Tom is boring because he's a caricature and he's a caricature because he's boring is circular reasoning. Nothing has been proven, merely restated. Similarly: you may not like Indian food as much as I do, but that doesn't mean I've "a whiff of loving [my] own farts." This is merely difference in taste. A sufficient defense is absent.
So too, the use of humor to distract from the lack of substantial criticism is cheap. Given how the rest of the article reads, I would bet my left pinky that "japery" was taken from a thesaurus to sound eloquent. See what I just did? I made a statement without any evidence, but couched it in sarcasm to sound convincing.
2. Claims made are often convoluted
He states that the game is unfriendly. First, he states there are no maps; that may be fair to criticize. Then he switches to things he dislikes, rather than "unfriendly elements": is waiting for an appointment or a bus schedule difficult? I doubt it. It's different pacing from the market norm and perhaps "inconvenient", but there's a bus schedule at the stop to ameliorate. So too, the forklift work is lambasted for its difficulties, yet he notes he keeps a save file for the forklift racing.
In the discussion of combat: is it something that's unfriendly, or simply bad? Even if it's merely bad, he calls it satisfying in the end.
3. Just criticism and misunderstanding may overlap, but they aren't identical
Returning to the first distinction: I do think he raises a couple points worthy of criticism in the original, chiefly:
a. lack of maps (I know it's a cozy town, so why would he need them? Alas, it's a fair point)
b. no health meter for enemies
c. the motorcycle controls really are underwhelming
As some have noted, he is trying to praise the series in places (S2 in particular), but it seems as if he can't decide if he loves or hates it. Perhaps that's his point, but I think he fails to distinguish the separate acts of:
a. judging Shenmue as an entity (the main concern)
b. judging Shenmue in relation to contemporary releases (somewhat valuable)
c. judging Shenmue in relation to the present day (least valuable).
He sort of weaves the three together when convenient: It was overrated by magazines, yet it provides one of the best game worlds of all time; the fighting controls are great, but it's not Soul Calibur; Ryo is dull because he wouldn't think Lishao Tao was a woman in 1987 Eastern culture (how enlightened, 2020 man).
TL;DR I respect what he was trying to do, but his assessment is largely a convoluted mix of opinions masquerading as facts; it both demonstrates and summarizes the confusion that most have when trying to engage this series. Time for a gin.