This being a Nintendo game, I suspect it will already be pretty optimized by the time it releases. Nintendo tend to be efficient coders, so I doubt there would be much room for further optimization on PS3/360 without resulting in noticeable visual cutbacks.

Curl, I wasn't indicating that Nintendo didn't optimized. I'm just saying that the smaller resources with a team with also good programmers could minimize the loss.

A very talented team with tons of time and money could probably get close, but at the end of the day 1GB of RAM will ways be more than the <500MB available on PS3/360, and as a massive open world game, Breath of the Wild likely pushes Wii U's larger memory capacity close to its limit. You could port it, in the same sense that you could port Uncharted 4 to the Xbox One, but not without cutbacks.

Yes. The only point that I had perma agreeing is that since it's cell-shaded they could possibly take the cuts without affecting much of the end result. But sure there would be cutbacks necessary.

I don't even know how is possible this game can run in WiiU, huge achievement right there.

And God, this game looks so good, my hype levels are insane, I have to stop watching videos about it.

It requires less RAM for streaming, but the sheer number of polygons and details, and the great use of lighting and textures plus all the enemies on screen at once, it is definitely a VERY demanding game for its hardware and would have been demanding had it been on Wii U.

There are many linear games, but none of them try to do what God of War 3 does so successfully. Just about any scene with titans in the game are damn impressive, as those titans are not just gigantic but also very well animated, and that requires a alot of resources.

Not just that but the particle effects are really good as well, and there are dynamic light sources too, such as when you use the Head of Helios.

Also it does all of this running at 45fps while Zeldaa runs at 30fps.

GoW3 does push the hardware pretty damn hard, but like many great looking games, it does so by making clever sacrifices and structuring the entire experience around maximizing eye candy. It intentionally avoids anything that might draw resources away from cramming effects on screen; the camera angles, level designs, interactions, and events are all rigidly controlled, and hence a lot of its world is one-sided set dressing and canned parlour tricks. Breath of the Wild does not have this luxury; it has to process a fully explorable open world stretching as far as the eye can see, packed with dense vegetation, dynamic lighting and shadowing that change with time of day and weather, real-time reflections in water, etc.

I agree with that, but the distance detailing shouldn't be much hard considering that the resolution allows loss of detail fairly nearby. GOW 3 didn't have vast open worlds but the worlds it did have were all very highly detailed, just look at the titans, millions of polygons moving as one entity, that is very impressive and something you do not see in open world games. Also as they were all at a fairly close or very close range they were highly detailed.

Killzone 3 is maybe even more hardware intensive according to you because the game did allow some exploration and freedom of movement and was incredibly detailed. Both GOW 3 and Killzone 3 have a lot more enemies too and Killzone 3 has very advanced AI. That is a very CPU intensive game.

well gta 5 runs on ps3/x360 as well