I'm really confused as to why you are arbitrarily seperating art design and art direction in the way that you are. I'm also confused by your apparent misunderstanding for the definitions of the two. By my understanding, art direction merely is the art style chosen and art design are the technical facets used to achieve a pleasing and striking aesthetic. For example, Wind Waker and Minish Cap share the same general art direction, but have very different art design. Zelda U and Journey have very different art direction, but have various commonalities in art design. By these definitions, very little of what you are saying makes sense to me, but I think I can use context to decipher it all.

"Blending futurist with primitive" has nothing to do with neither art design or art direction. That's setting - the world and universe in which the story takes place. If Zelda U had the exact same art design and art direction as Horizon, it wouldn't suddenly have robot dinosaurs for enemies. It would just have a far more muted color pallet (not a bad thing) with more a more realistic art style. Conversely, if Horizon had Zelda's art direction and art design, it wouldn't lose the robot dinosaurs, they would just be drawn and colored in a much more viberant and interesting way in a far more viberant and interesting art style that would actually be talked about in 20 years because that's what happens with games that have such stand out art direction. There isn't anything aesthetically or artistically in Horizon that showcases a "heavier" atmosphere than what has been shown in Zelda. Super Metroid is an example of heavy atmosphere in art design. Horizon is absolutely not. And it doesn't have to be. Again, Wind Waker is on of the most beautiful games of all time, and it's atmosphese is light as a feather.

You are critically underselling what Zelda is doing with its color in this game. It isn't merely "green grass and darker everything else." That's like saying Horizon is merely "white show and realistic everything else." Literally every screenshot of Zelda U is flush with rich and viberent color melded together in a way that would make color theorists mess their pants. There are oranges, yellows, violets, browns, and blues. The only reason the greens of the grass look so striking is because of the plethora of other colors that so perfectly complement them. That element isn't nearly as strong in Horizon. Again, the muted color pallet isn't a bad thing, but what Horizon does with its colors aren't even remotely as striking as what Zelda U does. It's like The Order. Everyone knows it has great, frankly pheonominal art direction, but it's not a stand out. It's just not in the same league.

I mentioned time because it is relevant. Okami is a game over 10 years old. It's not still beautiful purely because of its art direction, its art style, but because of it's art design, the technical tricks and techniques used to make that art style timeless and striking. Time is the ultimate defining factor in all this. It's why SMT Noctorne, another absolutely beautiful game of that era, is never in the conversation of most beautiful games of all time. It was not striking or stand out enough to stand the test of time, and neither will Horizon. They aren't even in the same league. Saying that Zelda's art direction isn't as "well explored" is just silly and not even worth properly addressing.

In 20 years, people are going to look at Xenoblade Chronicles X and Horizon: Zero Dawn and say "these games had some of the most interesting worlds to just be in and explore." In 20 years, people are going to look at Zelda U and No Man's Sky and say "these are some of the most beautiful games ever created." That's the difference.

You can always toss qualifiers on things.  "GG hasn't had a good game in ages"  "Nintendo hasn't had a good console Zelda game in ages" both have the same definition of "ages", that's all I'm addressing.  I said right in that quote you picked out "I don't mind the idea that Zelda as a franchise reviews much better (I think that's obvious to most informed people)".  You then come to me with "there's a pretty huge difference between the quality of those two franchises".  What exactly are you arguing against here?  Your argument is that Nintendo just shit out Tri heroes so it's cool that it wasn't as good as the standard Zelda?  Well GG had to make a game for a new console on a deadline, maybe they phoned it in too. 

Even if Horizon is a masterpiece of innovation and technical beauty, it will be hard to beat Zelda's cult classic status.

First I find this whole thread Horizon Zero Dawn vs Zelda U is very bad comparison. But if we comparing metascore of Killzone games and Zelda games, we will comparing home consoles game from series, not handheld, because Horizon Zero Dawn and Zelda U are home console games not handheld. I dont think that "GG hasn't had a good game in ages" but fact is that there is a huge difference in quality between Killzone home console game franchise and Zelda home console game franchise. Actually Zelda home console franchise is maybe only franchise that remains to have very high quality games for so long. And Triforce isn't standard Zelda, its spinoff same like was Zelda Four Swords Adventure, also fact.

so Nintendo only makes poor Zelda games when they try to (and only for spinoffs or maybe handheld) and can never screw up a console game?  Based off history I too doubt that they'll screw this up, but I'm curious to see if we'll get a Zelda in the low 9's or high 8's instead of the standard minimum of 9.5  If that ends up the case, and GG has another hit like Killzone 2 I could see them winning this contest.  It's not a terribly likely scenario, but it's not quite the laughible impossibility some here have stated.

Here we go, an other totaly unproven Sony first party game being hyped like butter on bread. How did that work out for The Order, Killzone and Infamous?

Critically, only Bloodborn as a major AAA PS4 exclusive delivered on ratings. Other than Bloodborn, did any AAA sony game even make it past 80 on metacritic? The Order, Killzone and Infamous sure did'nt. And offcaurse they were hyped like crazy by sony fans, but in the end they ended up being uninspired games that offered nothing new. Some of them ended up being good games (I really liked Infamous), but they offered nothing new, unlike fanboys who claimed that these games would revolutionize open world game or w/v stupid overhyped argument they threw at us... What makes you think this game won't be a repeat of past Sony titles6 So far it looks good, but nothing shown makes me think this game will be revolutionary. Meanwhile, did any home console Zelda game make it below 90 on metacritic? Don't get me wrong, with today's industry, with more and more sites desperate for clicks, it's getting much harder to get above 90% no matter how good a game is, so I cant guarantee that Zelda will get above 90. But let's get serious now, history from both company greatly favor Zelda. 

Sales: Your main argument is that PS4 has a much bigger install base. Now tell me, how many sony exclusives outsold SSB, MK8, NSMBU, SM3DW? I'll tell you how many. NONE. How many Sony exclusives outsold Splatoon? That answer to this question is a big wooping 1! The Last of Us Remsatered. And the way things are looking so far with that bundle, odds are that Splatoon will eventualy outsell it. Sony games are super overhyped on the internet by fanboys but that hype rarely turns into huge sales. Theyr is no way this game will outsell Zelda WiiU. To be honest I doubt Horizon will do over 2mil, I would'nt even be surprised if it does'nt outsell WW:HD's 1.5mil. Meanwhile theyr is no way that Zelda U will be below 2mil, if it's a launch title for the NX, forget it, it will reach between 4 and 5mil (depends on the NX's success)

Graphics: Why did you even make it a category? How does it matter? No gameplay, or story argument yet you felt the need to include something as shallow as graphics? Anyway, yea Horizon's graphics will be more realistic. But it will be forgotten in the pile of games with graphics just as similar as this one. While Zelda's art style will make it stand out. So in the long run it will still be a win for Zelda, the same way Windwaker wins over almost every gen5 games on this category.

Outside of the metacritic score, I will agree on sales. Graphics can go either way since said area can be subjective depending on the person's tastes.

This are all 3D Zelda games and their metascores: Ocarina of Time - 99, Majora's Mask - 95, Wind Waker - 96, Twilight Princess - 96, Skyward Sword - 93: avereage score is 95.8.

Handheld Zelda's perform little worse, around 5 metascore worse. But spinoofs are comepletly difrent story.

Zelda U is first HD true open and biggest world Zelda, basically Zelda like Nintendo wanted to make from NES Zelda and like exatly Zelda like fans wanted to see, and it looks like it will be one of the best Zelda game and I expecting metascore around 95. Of Course that Horizon Zero Dawn can top that, but fact is that would be really hard, basically it would need to be another hit like Last Of Us and even then wouldnt be safe that will top Zelda U.

The Last of Us Remastered passed 80 If you want to count that And the Uncharted ND collection. and Kilzone And Infamous were both good games so not sure why you were using them like they were bad games....The Order...not so much.

The game may be unproved but GG can and has made good games. KZ 2 was great, best in the series. KZ3 and SF were both good as well just not as good as 2 IMO. And And there is no argument that a Zelda home console games has never scored below a 90 but as you said the industry has changed so anything is possible. What makes you think this game WILL BE a repeat of the Zeldas of the past? Did you see anything in the Zelda game that looked revolutionary?(just asking because you picked it out with Horizon as if it was something negative)

And so Sony games don't have Huge sales? Or are you just speaking beacase none has broke into the 5-6mil this gen yet? Because we know that certain franchises sell and sell very well.

Graphics I am in agreement that this is a useless point because of the style of the games. BUT to say Horizon will be forgotten is silly. Do you think people forgot about the first time they saw the trailer for UC2? Or the opening battle in God Of War 3 just because other games came out? So since there will be other games with similar art styles as Zelda it will eb forgotten as well....

I did'nt want to include them because they are remastered, since it's a safe bet that a remaster 90+ would get atleast in the 80s. I should of said ''original ps4 games'' but that's just a limitation that I decided to impose. It's fair to count these games but it does'nt take away from my argument that so far not alot of ps4 first party game really delivered.

As for those 3 games I mentionned, my point was'nt that they were bad games. I said that I actually enjoyed Infamous (never played the other two, but heard terrible things from The Order), my point was that if you followed the hype of these games on the internet before release, on websites like N4G for example, these games were considered as guaranteed futur masterpieces. And we all know that it ended up being far from the truth. Now this game looks good like the 3 I mentionned looked good, not saying that it will be a letdown, but we are already comparing it to Zelda, one of the most beloved and most criticaly acclaimed franchise of all time, just from a few trailers. Come on! This COULD be true, but until proven true let's face it, it's highly unlikely.  So history is repeating itself with a Sony first party game being considered a guaranteed masterpiece before release, and so far fanboys has been proven wrong more often than none so ppl should calm down imo.

As for my revolutionary statement, maybe I should of said that it has nothing that shows that it will be a masterpiece despite Sony fans stating other wise, it looks good, but nothing masterpiece worthy if we stay realistic (and again, this is all based on the fact that the game is not out yet, maybe it will end up being excelent). As for Zelda, no, nothing from these stupid 30sec footages we've seen in two years gives you a hint of it being a masterpiece. But atleast it has a backtrack record that makes the probability of it being a excelent game quite high.

For my sales statement, all i'm saying is that so far the PS4 having a bigger audience did'nt help a single first party game to outsell games like Splatoon. Ppl think Horizon outselling Zelda is a given because PS4 is more popular than WiiU. But what makes you think that it will sell much more than Bloodborn, Killzone or Infamous? If all these games could'nt even outsell Splatoon, what chances does Horizon have against Zelda? Horizon would need to sell much more than all these ps4 games I just mentioned and so far I see not a single reason of it happening. Bloodborn was criticaly acclaimed and had good marketing, why did'nt it outsell splatoon on a console that had twice the audience of the WiiUs? And what will Horizon do differently? Yet Zelda outselling Splatoon is almost a given. Nintendo's big first party games always had the tendency of outselling Sony's, it's hard to argue against that.

Finally on graphics, with a realistic artstyle you tend to be forgotten quite easely. How can you expect otherwise when you know that Horizon won't even have the best graphics in 2016? Scalebound looks just as good, UC4 looks much better, I don't expect Horizon to be remembered by the end of the year for it's graphics. Ppl may all agree it will look good, but it just won't top the list of games to be remembered for graphics. While Zelda, the only fact that it's different, for better or worst, it makes it standout. That is my point, but I'm aware that it is totaly debatable.