sigh...... you have to try and first understand what the towers do in both games.

In zelda, the towers serve as a fast travel point, map revealer and it also marks out the names of popular/general areas in the map. Like towns/villages..etc.

In horizon, they do all that, but also give you information of the herd locations of  the non hostile resouce heavy machines in the area (a piece of information that is integral to how Horizon is played since the bulk of the game has you hunting said machines for resouces). 

I don't see how the differences in the two warrant one to be branded as a lot of other games before it and to lose points for that and then the other to never even be mentioned in most reviews. Mind you, horizon's towers were likened to games whos use of that mechanic didn't just reveal the map but list out all the subquest locations and collectables in that revealed area which basically turned everything into an errand run as opposed to one of exploration. Thats not what horizon ended up being at all.

This isn't even about which features i prefer.... like i prefer how horizon handles fast travelling, its a new take on how fast travelling is appraoched in open world games. yet you don't see me talking about that.

As are the towers in Horizon too..... see what i mean?

The towers in horizon are graceful beautiful walking enviromental puzzles. You can seek out some high vantage point and look as far into the distance as you can to spot them majestically walking in the distance to know where they are. You can also turn off all the HUD or map prompts in any mode of the game you play. You see? Lets keep this about the actual fact that there are towes in both games.

Exactly my point, and whats really funny here is that the only games that have as many or more towers than you would find in BotW are the very games that Horizon was compared to and lost points for. yet hardly a mention was made of them in Zelda.... and both games came out within a month of eachother.

Adnd someone in this thread is suggesting that I am unjustifiably crying reviewer bias (or at least inconsistencies) when i point this out.

My reason for bringing this up was simple, yes towers are in both games. It was ridiculed in one and not evenmentioned in the other. They didnt praise it or knock, they just chose not to mention them at all. I find that strange. But I am even willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and at least be open to understand why that is.

I don't see how the differences in the two warrant one to be branded as a lot of other games before it and to lose points for that and then the other to never even be mentioned in most reviews. Mind you, horizon's towers were likened to games whos use of that mechanic didn't just reveal the map but list out all the subquest locations and collectables in that revealed area which basically turned everything into an errand run as opposed to one of exploration. Thats not what horizon ended up being at all.

You don't need to see how.  That's the reviewers opinion, and not necessarily the same reviewers.  You don't have to like it.  But you can't claim there's a conspiracy to favor Zelda.

The issue is that Horizon only have 5 and they are not so fun like the ones in Zelda while it has more. Instead of making a PS pro patch that only a small group of people can enjoy they should have made more fun towers imo =p

Guilty. I haven't played a Ubisoft game in a very long time so I'm not familiar with map towers...

It makes sense though: climb a tower and you get a map. I'm guessing that's what a map tower does.

Because it's Zelda bias.

Well it's simple, when you review most games you compare them to other games. When you review Zelda, you only compare it to older Zeldas and gush over how many new mechanics it has (borrowed from other games). It's obvious really.

Calm down, I did not mention Horizon.

This is pretty much the truth.  It's all a matter of what perspective the reviewer wants to use.  

"This game borrows elements from other games instead of being original" versus "this game uses elements new to the series that breathe fresh life into the franchise."  Both sentences can easily be talking about the same elements, it's just how the writer wants to look at each situation.  

With new IP, I think critics are looking to be critical.  With certain established IP, I think critics are resisting being critical.