>>13775502
Metroidvania is a gay term. It's used to describe a negligible change in Castlevania's design philosophy. SOTN is by all measures a good game, but it's not really all that different than its predecessors. You still have boss battles, a variety of auxiliary weapons, and health management. The only major differences are the added "RPG elements" (another bullshit term) and the level design. Even if you hate the leveling up and equipment customization, the non-linear level design is only a natural evolution for the series, the reason being that games are extremely derivative, which means that developers tend to emulate certain elements that were taken from other titles. You can argue about whether or not this is a good thing, but that conversation isn't really relevant to whether or not "Metroidvania" should even exist as a term, or whether or not Castlevania was the first game to ever borrow elements from Metroid. It's not a genre, it's a pointless descriptive term, similar to "soulslike."
All that aside, Zelda II isn't what could be describe as a "Metroidvania" styled game, it's merely one of the first 2D side scrolling ARPG titles but with an RPG-esque overworld. Yes, the dungeons are non-linear, but they're segmented areas that don't connect to one another. That alone is enough to disqualify it from being described as a "Metroid-like", but it should also be mentioned that Zelda II's overworld and dungeons are locked behind specific item gates that can only be bypassed by using a specific item. Zelda II and Zelda III are similarly linear in this way, which is to say that the flow of progression is built around a very linear path. It can be described as follows:
>go to dungeon [X]
>collect item [A] from dungeon [X] and defeat the boss
>use item [A] to collect item [B]
>use item [B] to enter dungeon [Y]
>repeat
This is what is described as "The Zelda formula" and it's pretty fucking stale at this point. As an example, in Zelda III you need to collect the sword before you can leave Hyrule Castle with the princess. You need to collect the Bow and Arrow that is found inside the Eastern Palace before you can collect the Pegasus Boots, and you need the boots before you can collect the Book of Mudora and use it to enter the Desert Palace. There are more examples like this, but the point is that the game is designed around the player acquiring special items in a certain order, and this is what dictates progression, so even though you can technically go anywhere on the map, you're still limited by your arsenal. Zelda II is designed in a similar way; you need to collect the Jump (and arguably the candle) spell before you can enter Central Hyrule and move on to gain access to Death Mountain and the other Palaces, which means you need to collect the Statue from the cave in Northern Hyrule. You can technically sequence break any one of these intended paths of progression by collecting the necessary items and moving through the game at your discretion, but this is antithetical to the games' design. They just wasn't intended to be played in that way.
>You're describing elements of progression that are present in Metroid as well. For example, you need to collect the missile before you can open red gates, and you need to get the Power Bomb before you can explore the Meridian depths
This is true, but the major difference lies in the level design. In Super Metroid, the player is given an open, non linear, and interconnected world in which they can move and explore freely, and there are certain sequence breaks that can be performed without acquiring any special ability. However, I am of the opinion that any arguments that seek to create a distinction between the two aforementioned design philosophies are likely built upon semantics and "splitting hairs."
In truth, Metroid, Zelda and Castelvania are quite similar in a lot of ways, but it's pointless to use made up bullshit words to describe their similarities and differences, when it would be perfectly fine to use normal fucking language and the already existent, corresponding genre term to pigeonhole these games into respective categories. It's not a "Metroidvania", it's a 2D, side scrolling, action platformer that may or may not contain stat management and character building. It's not a "soulslike" it's a 3D ARPG with character building and stat management, some multiplayer functionality, and a "show don't tell" approach at narration and atmosphere.