drewpants: I actually picked this up again the other day because I missed it a little.
There's not a lot to say really, it's an older game for sure but still perfectly playable and a lot of fun.
When you ask 'How well has it aged?', what are you driving at? Obviously it's not as shiny as newer games, but unless your main focus is always having the newest stuff, its certainly still worth playing. There's no reason that should change with time for any game really.
Old visuals don't bother me, I've played many older games, but I haven't gotten into tac shooters, at least not the old-school kind.
When I talk about dated or archaic, I'm talking mostly about control schemes or gameplay. If the control schemes are rebindable, great, then that takes care of that. What I would consider a dated control scheme, would, be say, playing Doom with Win 95 controls mouseless.
With regards to gameplay, the best example I can think of on the spot is Grim Fandango. If I look back at the few reviews from 1998 I can find, they talk about how intuitive the puzzle design is. Yet, when I played the Remaster, it was some of the most unintuitive, complicated, and illogical puzzle design I'd seen. And it wasn't just me, reviewers who'd played it back in the day said this about it as well, and that it had aged poorly. I loved the story, world, and characters though. Compare this to something like, say, The Dream Machine, which, while really hard, most of the puzzles are grounded in real-world logic. I would also say that something like Wolfenstein 3D has aged badly as well. The level design there is too maze-like (at least for me,) and doesn't feel nearly as clever or well-designed as Doom or the shooters that came after.