Story, worldbuilding, dungeons, combat, and especially graphical performance are all universally better in Horizon. The only reason people care about Zelda is because “muh Nintendo”, and the fact that it is a good set of ganes. However, I’ve seldom seen any criticism of Horizon outside of outright misogony and xenophobia, or “Assassin’s Creed did it first”, as if Guerilla has any control over history.
Sony ownership is valid criticism. The Zero Dawn remaster forces PSN sign-in. Yet, Nintendo owns Zelda, and is easily a shittier company–with a crowd of zombies lined up to lick their boots. Horizon isn’t the series with the cult following, here.
None of that changes the fact that people find it so important to mention their disdain for Horizon the moment it’s brought up. Everyone within my space who has tried the game has admitted it’s quite a well-designed set of games. If you don’t like it because of its genre, then that’s completely fine, but stop saying it’s “unorignal”. If Horizon is unoriginal, so is Zelda. They’re both unique compared to their predecessors.
“QUIT HAVING FUN!!”
i know you already covered that base, but it just sounds like the ubi far cry games…
Most modern open world games are, or at least take some inspiration. It’s why I think the “Assassin’s Creed clone” argument is ridiculous, since the argument is selectively applied. Horizon remains one of the best executions of an open world.
i mean, it’s not ridiculous. it just describes the genre, like “doom clone” used to describe all fpses.
i don’t really play that genre because they all seem so samey. the thing botw (and totk more so) had going for it was existing lore, a seldom used artstyle, and a rock solid, extremely adaptable ECS.