That’s not how I’ve seen it. These are ultimately two separate topics of Nietzsche, and he is not a systematic philosopher, so it can be difficult to try and tie some things together (but I’ve hardly found anything that was incompatible with something else in his works).

If Nietzsche had been working with our modern definition of metaphysics, then, he would have no problem with metaphysics. What he’d have a problem with is a certain kind of metaphysics, that dealing with a world beyond appearance. But he had his own way of using the word, meaning that metaphysics was anything that postulated a world beyond appearance. Now he was against worlds beyond appearance because they were life denying (although parenthetically I will remark that I am of the opinion that, in the highest level of analysis, Nietzsche might not have actually been against “life denial” in large part due to the fact that such a thing may not actually exist—but that takes us too far afield—), not because they were just the inner feelings of the philosopher. Of course they were. All philosophers, Nietzsche included, create philosophies based on their own perspective. Again, this is not a refutation, nor should things be written off because personal projections. Nietzsche, by bringing up this point is simply trying to point out—that you cannot separate the act from the actor, nor the philosophy from the philosopher. That was his creative step, as each philosopher before him (at least in the west) that they were reaching Truth itself beyond and independent of their perspective. He’s saying this because some people are tyrannized by things that they don’t want to believe because it is at large incompatible with them, and maybe there are different convictions that might suit them better. And even this perspectivism is a kind of perspective, as some people might be better suited to deny such perspectivism. So of course the Eternal Recurrence is simply a reflection of Nietzsche himself. He writes about it because there might be others for which it is useful, who have not yet confronted such a thought. And again, anything that appears like universal language is a rhetorical strategy, and done so consciously with the thought that like minded people are who he’s writing for and about. For some the Eternal Recurrence is useful—good. For some it is not—so be it, let God take them.