The metroid connection fits most of his criteria; certainly, at least the minimum he suggests at the end. I would be interested in hearing why he thinks the series only meets the 3 check marks it gets... For lack of better phrasing, it just seems entirely incorrect.
The rules that he cites as the minimum rules basically describes the "metroidvania" subgenre. Essentially, games in this genre have an open world, in which you explore to find powerups in order to reach more places to explore. While the genre doesn't demand level puzzles, that's how the games are typically designed.
That's exactly what I was wondering. I mean, the Metroid series is known for having loads of collectible items and exploration to the point of actually spawning a subgenre.
And precision combat? The Metroid Prime series is probably the most difficult thing Nintendo's put out in the past 20 years. While they're not the most difficult games ever, they require you to think and analyze the enemy and your surroundings, then finding the perfect way to attack it. With Zelda, you're given the weapons you need to use right before fighting any boss and it's just a matter of hitting the action button and rolling out of the way. They're notoriously easy games (the first two games aside).
I love Zelda, but I'd say Metroid fits the bill better than Zelda does.
The rules that he cites as the minimum rules basically describes the "metroidvania" subgenre. Essentially, games in this genre have an open world, in which you explore to find powerups in order to reach more places to explore. While the genre doesn't demand level puzzles, that's how the games are typically designed.