Did it tho? and can we reliably tell that it did or didnt when most armors probably dont look the same as they used to do, either because of time has taken its toll, or because some collector has polished any trace of whatever decoration it had. Also, consider that our samples might be also biased, considering that more armor survives past the mid 15th century and also in better state, so that they are more likely to have keept their orginal look or evidence of it, giving us a much bigger sample of the types such as the ones mentioned by the other anons. Take as an example of all that i said this helmet at Churburg, a 1400 bascinet that used to be blued until it was damage by fire i think. Luckly it was recorded and photographed before it was damaged.
You could look also at artistical depictions in place of extant armors, but this open a can of worms as >>79786414
puts it, since we rarely can tell artist the circunstances without a time machine. There are examples of miniatures where armors are painted as a dark blue, but so are the swords and weapons, is the artist trying to depict blackened/blued armor or it is just the color that he used to represent a metalic surface? Ive seen some argue that the reason why some armors look shining black in some depictons such as >>79753248
(and that is assuming that it actually looks like that, ignoring any damage of the colors due to time or due to the camera that took the photo), is because the artist used an armor for reference inside room. It makes sense to me but again, how can we tell without a time machine.
The best i can think would be the increase in munitions plate and maybe bluing since having the dopest suit of armor you could afford was a big deal in the 1500s but would only apply to high end stuff and assumes that bluing wasnt that popular to beggin with. That i know the only actual change in fashion like this is from the 1300s to the 1400s when there was a shift from covered breastplates to uncovered.