| Super_Boom said: I'm not familiar with how Horizon implements towers, but based on what I've read, it seems the output of both isn't quite the same. Towers in Zelda are essentially just better vantage points that color your map, and feel much more like a nod to the man-fish in Windwaker than anything else. I have no idea how reviewers looked at both games, but if the implementation is different, that might explain why certain reviewers (assuming they're the same reviewer looking at both) weighed the two games differently. Now, if reviewers are docking points for something trivial, like the fact that a tower is a tower, than that simply means the reviewers are morons. |
From Destructoid's review conclusion:
"Horizon Zero Dawn is a fascinating premise wrapped in a tortilla of tropes. It has detective vision, radio towers, skill trees, masked load screens (Tony Hawk's American Wasteland gets no credit for popularizing this in 2005, by the way), and a world map littered with billions of points of interest -- all stuff you've seen before."
They gave it a 7.5 and seemed very down on Horizon having elements that featured in other games. He also implied that he found crafting to be tedious.
I mean, how are skill trees a negative? How are points of interest a negative? Masked load screens? I don't care if I've seen these things before, I care if they're well implemented or not.
Just for the sake of comparison, the same writer gave Super Bomberman R a 7 and Zelda a 10. He also seemed to like crafting and towers in Zelda.
