I wasn't saying that BoTW's approach to towers was better. I wasn't trying to make the argument that Breath of the Wild is the greatest game of all time. I don't even know why you brought that stuff up as a response to me.
At any rate, I wasn't saying that Zelda towers have asterisks, I was saying that you (and others) ignore context when making the comparison. And it's true - your post right here is an example. People take jabs at Ubisoft towers for specific reasons that are conveniently ignored whenever the comparison is made. Not just because 'they're towers you climb that unlock a part of your map'.
People made jabs at Ubisoft towers over the last couple of years specifically because of how they had been implemented in Ubisoft games over a period of years: as an over-utilized mechanic seen often enough in multiple iterations of multiple Ubisoft franchises that it gave off the appearance of a design crutch, with nearly identical implementation in each franchise, existing to unlock not only part of your map, but a massive swath of repetitive side quests and collectables seemingly meant to pad your time with the game. That's the context in which people have taken jabs at 'Ubisoft Towers' in recent years. I posted how Zelda's towers differ in context (and why I think that merits more nuanced analysis than 'lol they're Ubisoft towers' at the very least):
and another poster expounded upon those ideas:
and I'm not making the argument that those differences make Zelda's towers better. I'm trying to communicate to you that those differences make Zelda's towers not 'Ubisoft towers' in practice. There's no reason to criticize Zelda's towers for the same reasons you'd criticize Ubisoft towers. That's what I meant when I said that you ignored the context behind the phrase 'Ubisoft tower'. The only reason to even make the connection is to attempt to apply the negative connotation behind 'Ubisoft towers' to Zelda's towers in conversation, and I feel that's pretty disingenuous.
K, let's not lose sight of my original statement, and exactly what we're talking about here.
I used BOTW towers, and its context, as an example of why someone would use that to say the game is overrated. Don't get it twisted, towers are/ were a great game design. Obviously Ubisoft aren't the only ones that used these design decisions, or towers, they like you said, used them as a crutch.
Horizon had a towers , but theirs were dinosaurs that moved..
middle earth had towers.. zelda, dying light, and a few others I forget.. but all have context and things that make em different or a way to hide it's full towerness.
It wouldn't make sense to analyze each and every different game for its towers to try to differentiate, cuz they all boil down to being just that, towers.
Nintendo thought it was a good idea to implement them, even if they switched it up a lil bit. The base design is there. I don't think Nintendo were using it as a crutch, they just did what they thought was best for their game and it worked. They even made it a lil difficult to climb towers by having those laser guys shoot at you when trying to climb them..
But back to the topic at hand, towers weren't even one the problems I had with the game.. I just found it dull after a while. Some of the shitty habits I picked up throughout my life, as someone who love games, wouldn't allow me to accept this new Zelda. I hate leaving stuff undone or leaving quests open before progressing through the game. I didn't have 200 hours to dedicate to find the cool stuff, etc.
But I get ya..