We'd already seen Horizon, so I would vote Zelda.

Not only that, but a deeper look at Horizon's combat and voice acting/were troubling. I am still looking forward to it though. The premise is great, the graphics are amazing. Just like Killzone, but GG failed in too many other areas there.

It's way to early to praise Zelda for much of what your talking about. We've only seen a small portion of the game, how do you know thing aren't going to be copy and pasted? I'm also not sure what you mean by less scripted, but that stuff is besides the point.

It simply looks like the game has less stuff do to in a similar amount of space than other open world rpgs. It also doesn't have nearly as much ambient ncps and animals and plant life. The worlds in other games just seem way more alive.

Now, could that change? Sure. But it's not likely, and it would be surprising to see big world changes now with the game less than a year away.

Which one looks:

1) more impressive? Zelda
2) more unique? Zelda
3) More intriguing? Horizon (Dino Mechs!! Whats up?)
4) more fun? Hard to say without playing both, which i will do.

There is a huge difference between "it looks great but Horizon made me wow more" and "this looks boring and average, there is no reason to be excited", the second comes clearly form someone that is either very biased or just haven't played a Zelda game in his entire life.

Anyone saying Zelda to the first question is joking or needs glasses, the rest is a matter of opinion. I feel like i haven't seen enough of Zelda to really compare, though the environment looks a bit empty.

The bolded is your problem. The Legend of Zelda is not an rpg, it is an Action-Adventure, compare it to Action-Adventure games (Shadows of Morder, Uncharted 4, Tomb Raider, Dishonoured, etc.) Neither genre has more or less unique content, but RPGs tend to have a lot of filler which makes it seem like there is more to do when it is just the same old stuff. Action-Adventure games can also do that, but they are usually considered bad games if they do.

I disagree with this "The worlds in other games just seem way more alive."

Also this applies to you as well, "We've only seen a small portion of the game."

Neither wow me, but I'm still watching the tree house thing on twitch and I really want to play the new Zelda, a whole fucking lot, it looks extremely flexible, and I now understand what they meant when they said they wanted to make it more Skyrim-like.

Spiderman beats both.

Half of the arguments have come down to "what do you see in [opposing game]? It's just a generic [company] game." If you see a clearer discussion developing here then by all means continue it, and try to focus it that way, but it's been needless Zelda or Horizon bashing/riding all thread with very little middle ground. I have my doubts about both because they both look to have put style over substance, but a thread directly comparing the two isn't the best place to air concerns. It'll just get drowned out. 

I love open world sandbox games with RPG elements, so all things being equal they both would have potential for me to enjoy. However...

Horizon looks way more exciting to me. It's a unique setting. Post apocalypse itself is not unique, but the rest seems really intriguing.

Zelda on the other hand I feel like has long ago lost most of it's luster. Based on track record alone, I do not have confidence in Nintendo to finally create a 3D Zelda that bests the competition. I haven't really had fun playing a Zelda game since LTTP.