@smugumin GAME: start, play through 100% of the intended experiences of the game, reach satisfying end
GAME (procedurally generated): same but you randomly experience 1/60th of the intended experience and you're aware you're missing a lot, so you keep playing even though most of your actual experience is very similar from run to run. No end to the game; you just stop one day.
The latter gets hate because it CAN BE a cynical emulsifier, like water-filled or slime-filled beef. You can take a small game and spread it out the events spatially (open world) or temporally (procedural generation) and make it feel like much more of a game even though there is no additional game design work put into it, and even though the gameplay is worse off from being much more repetitive.
There are plenty of good games where the feature is sincerely used, but anything that gets popular then becomes a gold rush and then attracts gold-rushers who do the "GAME (open world)" deliberately. Anyway, the feature can be overused to the point that people want carefully designed games again.
Another case like this is level design in FPS games, where the art direction got so good and the environments so immersive you no longer felt the malice of the level designer and the beautiful environments may as well have been blank corridors for how much they mattered to the game.
