I don't think he's entirely right or entirely wrong.
The concept of "a point and click adventure" is almost anachronistic in itself at this point. The genre is a product of a time when it was the best possible marriage of story and gameplay. Back then no other genre of game could incorporate as much of a compelling narrative and still have enough interactivity for the games press and audience to accept it as a "game."
Nowadays, every game of every genre can potentially have just as much story content as The Secret of Monkey Island. Every game can have cinematic cutscenes and relatable characters and comedy and drama beats that land. Everything from the old text adventures to visual novels to Myst to Monkey Island to Ace Attorney to The Cave to Gone Home to The Walking Dead to Life is Strange to The Stanley Parable to Coffee Talk to Harold Halibut are all part of that same legacy, and even games like Psychonauts and Half-Life 2 and Portal and Mass Effect and Fez and The Last of Us and who knows what else are building off of that legacy. If you set out to make a game that just tells a great story, it can look like anything and feel like anything and play like anything. The Adventure Game genre didn't die out at all, it just invaded every other genre.
Which means that if somebody sets out specifically to make a "pure" point and click adventure game in the current era, it is a conscious decision to make a game that feels more like Monkey Island than it does any of the thousand other things that it could feel like. Nothing wrong with that, but when that's the direction a game takes, those are the comparisons that it will invite, and those are the fans that it will attract, whether it overtly references the older games or not.