Ok, pending release a lot of gamers and even reviewers looked at horizon and slanted it for how similar it is to a "ubisoft game" because of its use of map towers. You know, those things that when you climb to its top reveals a small portion of the map.

There were reviewers that even docked points from the game citing that because it had these "map towers" that they hated it felt too much like farcry or assasins creed.

Can someone explain to me how its possible that no one has said anything about the "map towers" in Breath of the Wild?

it took me stumbling across this article from videogamer  to even know they were the game proper as most reviews I have watched didn't even mention them.

Sigh... play Shadow of Mordor, it's also an Ubisoft's game. :P

I am clearly talking about two games here reviewed within a forthnight of eachother.

In one, a particular mechanic was complained about and points were docked or the game was flat out categorized as another type pf game simply for having it. And in the other, it hardly was even mentioned even though its very very very present. Within a forthnight of eachother.

I personally have nothing againt map revealing towers. And disregarded the reviewers that mention or dissed them in Horizon as simply not being into something that I don't mind. And thats ok, cause you know.... reviews are opinions after all. But just noticing that these very same reviewers don't mind said towers in Zelda got me wondering. Why?

I am not saying towers are bad, or that Zelda should also lose points for its implementation in the game...... I am just saying, isn't it kinda odd that one feature can be talked about by almost everyone in one game and completely ignored in another, even though it is there and dos the exact same thing?

Ahh .. well my friend it's because it's a Zelda game and it automatically gets a free pass on these types of things -.-

I refuse to believe that. I really want to believe that there is something about the implementatioon of towers in it that made it ok and better than how it was used in Horizon. Cause such an oversight or "free pass" would just be too obvious to dismiss.

Like i honesty don't know why she reviewed, scored and then talks about annoying map towers.

I watched the review, it's a mess. xD

People are too distracted by it being a Zelda/Nintendo game. Watching some reviews on Youtube some of them go off on a whole monologue gushing about "You can go anywhere you see." and just describing features that are in every open-world game as if they're INCREDIBLE.

Personally I have no issue with ubisoft towers though.

I know i don't want to believe in that either but unfortunately it's probably true..  

Come on what's a better way of it being used than making it into a giant awesome walking robot tower that you have to cilmb let's see what open world game can top that! :D 

But seriously though i dunno maybe it's because the map and colour of the world look simillar to Tibet from FC4 and that automatically means it's ripping off Ubisoft games

Because reviewers don't hold Nintendo to the same standard that they hold most other games too.

Nostalgia kicks in and things get a free pass, just like the review towers example you gave. If a game has frame rate and performance issues reviewers usualy dock points, again they didn't with zelda. It's not exclusive to Nintendo, but it's present in most long running franchises. How on earth did skyrim score so high when it was literally a broken mess on PS3? Because it's the elder Scrolls, that's why

Well, most nintendo gamers probably never got to play those games since they were too big for wii. Maybe that's why it got a free pass.