Platformers and 2D side-scrollers are so generic.
I get bored with them within 20-30 minutes.
They try to wrap them up with attempts at a plot and characters but ultimately controller twitch mechanics are essentially mindless and repetitive.
"Here's my left side."
"Here's my right side."
"Avoid the balls floating around."
Yawn.
It's not like we ever see eye to eye on anything anyways, so I can't say I'm surprised by this.
I'm going to regret asking, but why do you say that? What's so special about Super Metroid? It looks like every other platformer to me and something that could've come out 5-10 years earlier. The early 3D FPSes were cutting edge and weren't even possible just 1 or 2 years earlier. They may've been rather mindless, but were they any more mindless than platformers like Super Metroid? I'm not sure about Super Metroid, but most platformer levels are super linear and don't allow you to backtrack. At least even the early FPSes had open maps and allowed or even required you to re-visit areas. While simple by today's standards, the early FPSes were very advanced for the day. That and the fact that side scrolling platformers really hadn't evolved since the 80s are largely why the birth of one genre coincided with the death of the other.
Sorry about the length, but..... yeah.
If you care about innovation and are lumping it together with generic platformers, it should really be noted and emphasized that the appeal and focus of Super Metroid really has nothing to do with its combat and platforming-- its resemblance is superficial only, and honestly, it feels wrong to even call it a platformer, even though it technically is-- it's more about the way that the power-ups allow the map to unfold like an elaborate, densely packed puzzle, as if you were a mouse trapped in a maze that goes in and out of itself and that you can approach in a few ways.
If you're looking at this from a "what's cutting edge at the time", "is it a drastic evolution", or "how much stuff is available to do" perspective, we may not see eye to eye on this, because I generally don't care or see too much value in those things. I'm just speaking based on how things hold up and how strong, tight, and flawless they seem as games/art in isolation, at least from my perspective. I want games to be perfect in the way that Chess is perfect. I love when rich and complex designs/mechanics rise out of deceptively simple ideas (which is why I tend to dislike a lot of newer games that rarely feel like that).
On a surface level, there's aesthetics, design, and presentation. Super Metroid is a visually and aurally beautiful game, despite its technical limitations. The design and artistry behind it is inspired and timeless, even compared to the best modern games (it "looks" and "sounds" more appealing than something like Hollow Knight or any of the copycat Metroidvanias that come out today, IMO). 3D games in 94 are (at least with the benefit of hindsight) aesthetic atrocities that do not hold up in presentation at all. Even the best ones tend to feel like you're playing a campy B-movie.
Those sprites look beautiful today.
In terms of feel, controls (although the floatiness may give a poor first impression), map design, and overall execution, Super Metroid is right at the peak of what 2d gaming (and gaming in general) has accomplished, whereas 3D games in 94 really didn't figure everything out yet, and tend to feel very clunky and mechanically uninteresting compared to today's 3D games.
Everything comes together perfectly in Super Metroid. The way every moment unfolds, the placement of every power up, the feedback, the sequence breaking, the hidden, map expanding techniques, the Alien/Blade-Runner-esque style and atmosphere, the music, the simple setup and payoff of its bare bones narrative-- just the overall minimalistic tastefulness and sensibilities of everything feel like they were painstakingly considered and pulled off beautifully. The sense of discovery and the way that game perfectly manipulates that "Aha!" feeling is masterful in a way that not many games can touch.
The only flaws I can think of are that there's a point of no return save point at the end of the game that can screw you, a "noob bridge" screen that people get stuck on because it isn't super intuitive, movement takes some getting used to, but feels beautiful and unique once you do, and fighting enemies can feel a tad tedious when you're under-powered at the beginning of the game (it's much more satisfying when you can slice right through them later on).
Metroidvanias aren't just becoming a fad again because people are nostalgic. There's something legitimately magical about the sensation that that structure of game can give you when it's done as well as it was in Super Metroid, and they're all trying to recapture it to varying degrees of success..
You might be able to argue that later, more polished 3D games may do the same (though that hasn't been my experience), but way back in 94, when nobody really knew how to do 3D properly and everything looked like garbage (none of this "good for its time" stuff)? No way.
