I don't quite understand.  You're not implying that you can make a judgement about a game having interesting locations based on a single screen shot someone took because they thought it was pretty, are you?  

I hope not but, just in case:

There's a lot of difference on the impact on gameplay between pretty much just being able to see farther away and filling your map with waypoints. Also, actual integration between feature and game does not depend exclusivelly on the feature. Things that impact gameplay differently (and on different games) got reviewed differently. That's normal.

And that's clearly the same as saying 0 =/= 0.

Sure.

That's because what you wrote was terrible.  You were trying to prove that one tower is a tower and the other tower is a cat.  It was bare sophistry.

For example, you said, "you look around yourself, you decide a spot looks funny, you mark it, go there, and check it out. If the game's core idea is exploration, that probably enhances it. Summing, the core funcion of these towers is giving you a vantage point and extending your view. Just like, you know, towers."  Except, I've done the exact same thing in Far Cry and often.  Your argument is paper.

The spikes werent really à puzzle, it just forces you  to find holes to climb, things ive already seen in far cry or other climbing towers game, and having ennemies you have to deal with before climbing or theyll make your climb hard is common thing in thèse games too.

Also Zelda has something similar to swingsuit to Travel fast from towers but thats still Silly to say its à far cry like just Because you do this.

No really, this " far cry like " thing doesnt seem to bé more deserved for Horizon than for Zelda , liké i Said being à new IP people just feel thé need to put it in some catégory. 

You can't deal with the guardians, at least not at the point in the game when I climbed the tower. You have to avoid their attacks, which involves gauging and conserving stamina, crouching at particular strategic times, etc. The Gerudo puzzle is more involved than that though. You have to stack metal boxes, but because the physics system is realistic they sink as they would in real life. So you need to stack them so that the top ones don't sink. And it is not obvious that this is the way to access the tower. An alternative method was to fly there with the sail cloth, but a wind is placed which prevents you from reaching the tower by air. 

The point is that each tower has a different puzzle, some physics based, others with different obstacles. It isn't just  climbing. 

As for the rest of your reply, I don't care about the comparisons with far cry for either game. I just wanted to correct/contextualize your statement.

You said these giant robot giraffes could be used as vantage points, and used those pretty screenshot as an example. I'm saying the environment has too many cliffs and too much fog, and the giraffes are too short to possibly see anything of interest from these screenshots you've shown, hence, all the elevated height offers is a pretty view.

First, I was defining two types of "tower" and arguing, from what I've seen here and from the reviews themselves, that "Zelda's towers are seen as being closer to the first archetype." while "HZD's towers are seen as being closer to the second archetype". I was never sayingin either case you had purely one thing or the other.

That being said, sure. If a tower fills your map with waypoints you can try and ignore that, just as you can look around and see if you find something. The point though is which sort of gameplay the two different kinds of towers are more or less conductive to, and there is a clear difference in that, which grants a different treatment to each. I never said towers of the second kind couldn't be used as those of the first one. I said their main function wasn't that, being "primarilly side mission/resource waypoint mass relays". Which is also not necessarily bad, but if some reviewers don't like that in a given game, there's nothing wrong with that either.

I also pointed about the "trope tortilla" thing, how the implementation of a feature and it's interaction with the actual core gameplay should be every bit as important for a critique as the feature itself.

Cause OP was talking only about map towers........ and the double standards in the review process thing you just quoted is also in relation to this particular issue.... map towers.

Welcome to reality. Most commercial reviews are disonest.

Which is what it does in Horizon in the videos I have seen, which immediately makes me cringe. And assuming reviewers actually are ok with towers in one game and not the other, which the OP is yet to really prove with evidence, this is logically the reason why. It's a gameplay loop that Ubi has run into the ground. You should see The Division, holy shit are there a ton of markers and points of interest on the map. Which makes me not want to even bother trying to do them all. It also lists exactly what they are with names and icons, which also sucks.

It's not even really the same gameplay mechanic, and Zelda pulls it off much better.