>>720385414 (OP)
They can be amazing, but currently I think they're in trouble.
>too many roadblocks, player is railroaded down a linear path
>grinding for levels/money/abilities through skill trees
>no randomizer mode, lack of replay value
>inbred gameplay mechanics (double jump, wall jump, air dash, grapple jump, etc)
>poor map designs that only account for enemy encounters, little to no platforming or environmental hazards, or worse, lazy precision platforming with spikes everywhere
People are basing an entire sub-genre off of one game that was released almost thirty years ago. It's okay to like Symphony of the Night, but the game had flaws and it was inevitable to notice them after this long. Positioning and timing are way less important than they were in the classic series, the level design suffers from the problem of having to make all the areas connect somehow, there's tons of items and weapons that may as well be purely aesthetic and provide no unique value, and so on.
You're gonna think I'm crazy, but I think a great blueprint for an adventure game is Zelda II. Why? Because it's about finding, not grinding. The experience to level up health/magic/attack is its only drawback. But combat was surprisingly sophisticated for its time in how you had to approach enemies given your short range, and the overworld map prevents over long slogs going from one area to another and even provides an opportunity to hide more secrets. Check out Hoverbat's Zelda II remake for the potential of games like that.
