Thank you.  The other guy didn't seem to want to answer my question.

Personally, I don't mind invisible walls if they are were you expect them to be.  In Skyrim, when I'd reach the top of the map and just keep swimming north, I knew I had to reach the edge eventually.  It's just a logical limit.  It's when I run into them in the interior of a map that I find bothersome.  New Vegas, for example, which had them at odd places.  I haven't played Horizon but it sounds like it does this.

In some ways, I don't think they're worse than manipulating geography, though.  So many game worlds seem to have moutains all the way around them, which can feel artificial.  Others can't and shouldn't go that route because they're not set in mountain regions.  And, honestly, after playing Skyrim, New Vegas, and the Far Cry games, I'm sick of open worlds set in mountain regions--it's like a trick that's been used way too often.

As for going anywhere, I've been spoiled by my jetpack in Fallout 4.

You can't see the difference between a map with invisible walls inside and a map with not a single invisible wall outside the very edge of the world? Ok then

And the bold part is actually a huge difference that shows how much better designed as an open world one of them is. 

Also if you dont like to bunny hop constantly to get the slow mo then dont do it... ive never even thought about doing that because its so silly, and you do have an ability that slows time for you, so its not like you cant have access to slow mo without bunny hopping.

And you dont even need slow-mo to begin with, its not like the game is so hard that you constantly need to be in slow mo to beat the enemies, the slow mo time the concentration ability gives you is more than enough to deal with anything, there is no need to constantly bunny hop for slow mo... plus as i said it looks so stupid that i personally would never even do that.

Is just as surprising as you doing the opposite. And yes, certainly they have worse problems since on Zelda invisible walls are not a problem to beggin with.

Well, it's like in Skyrim then. At north, south, east, west you have the borders of the map, an exact quadratic shape. Everything inside that is free of invisible walls. And towards the manipulating geography: yes, the borders are all diffcult areas: desert, mountains, abyss, ocean. But they're not similar, they are a continuation of the geography that you find within the borders.

Thats not like it came out honestly, he was just pointing out the obvious that zelda like any open world game has invisible walls of some kind on its border, you are just being incredibly defensive about Nintendo like ALWAYS.

What's this nonsense about Zelda not having story driven walls? The entire beginning of the game takes place in an area you aren't allowed to leave until you complete certain tasks. Also, a ton of the things in the world are blocked off by stamina limitations.

This argument really bowls down to grinding to progress or doing story missions to progress.

This is why i wanna play both games before actually comparing them in any way.

Every game has edges, including Zelda

The Plateu is supposed to be a tutorial that can be finnished in less than half an hour and is not really limited by any wall, once you get out it the game is completely open and you can go literally everywhere on the inside of the map. You can also escape the limitations of the stamina as much as you want thanks to cooking.