I think pretty much every single 3D Zelda convention was broken (discarded) in this game. So I am a bit baffled by this summary to be honest.

Combat of Zelda is usually pretty good and this looks like an evolution form the best games of the franchise in that regard and with way more variety than before, so right now we know the combat is gonna be good almost for sure, nobody has played an Horizon game before however, how can some people be so sure is better and in "another level" when there is no reference whatsoever? And scale? Have you seen the scale of the new Zelda? The whole area they are showing, wich is really big is just like a 10% of the entire game, is absolutely huge going by the map comparison they showed, I don't see another level in terms of scale in any way, graphics of Horizon are in another level, that's for sure, but artstyle however is pretty great in both and is just a matters of taste.

The puzzle solving aspect of Zelda doesn't intrique me anymore, the only real thing, aside from story, that made me keep coming to Zelda despite the fact that the 3D part of all the games never felt right.  What's left of Zelda I still care about would be gameplay, if they could somehow manage to do it right for a change, and story such as it is.   So while they could be 'discarding all the old 3D Zelda convenctions' I do not have confidence that what they have come up with to replace those old conventions will make for fun gameplay.

People have all this confidence in Nintendo that they will always in the end make a good game.  I do not have this confidence, it wavered in the N64/GC era, but was uterlly lost in the Wii/Wii U era.

I can't argue with you there.

I'll give Horizon the graphics title, but that's probably because I like it's style better than I like the Japanese anime style. Zelda also still seems a little rough in that department at some points, but I guess that's the PS4's power for you. Interested to see how Zelda's NX version is going to look.

I already know though before playing either that Zelda is going to be a hundred times more fun to me and probably has more to it as well. And since the fun factor is a billion times more important; Zelda wins.

The focus in all of the stuff they've shown so far has been combat, with some puzzle-solving (but even that isn't in the typical Zelda fashion.) It seems to be a spiritual sucessor to the first LoZ, very combat and exploration heavy.  Although we still have to see dungeons.

Have you watched the treehouse streams at all ?

This is categorically false. Everything is subjective here, besides a discussion of which game is more technically demanding. This is true for any game.

Seriously. After hearing all the Nintendo fans rave about this trailer, I'm a little dumbfounded at what I just watched. It still looks good and I'm sure it'll deliver, but really?

I saw the official trailer and have read some comments talking about it's huge open world and such.  I'll have to watch some more to make an actual judgement, until ultimately getting my hands on it for the final verdict.  What I have seen so far has not impressed me enough to overcome my lack of confidence.  Overall there still seems to be some 3D jankyness, the puzzle solving combat stuff (bee's and rocks) I can definitely do without, in terms of regular normal live action combat it still seems simplistic although better than previous.

But it's an open world game. So it's world is going to be compared to other open worlds. 

I don't see how you could say that the world we've seen so far is anything like as fleshed out as other modern open world games. As I said, just the sheer difference in the amount of animal and plant life should make that pretty clear. Not to mention that it does seem like there is a lot of empty space between things to do.

I said at the end of my last post that things could change. But it would be weird if they chose to show off a rather empty part of the map for the E3 demo, wouldn't it?