Yeah, besides the obvious differences in art style, Far Fry 2-4 on PS3/360 are quite similar to BotW in that they feature open worlds with lots of vegetation, scattered enemy encampments and wildlife, etc. They seem like the most logical point of comparison in my view.

Far Cry 3 and 4 on PS360 are impressive technical accomplishments for the hardware they're running on, but overall, I'd give BotW the edge as it seems to have a bigger world with denser and more interactive vegetation, as well as a slightly higher screen resolution. (720p versus cropped sub-HD in Far Cry)

I don't know. Both have a lot of pop-ins, and Farcry has quite a lot of NPCs and from what we've seen so far of BOTW, it doesn't seenm like it is as densely populated as Farcry 3 or 4. Vegetation, except for the grass, is also quite simple compared to what's found in the FarCry series. 

I don't know. Both have a lot of pop-ins, and Farcry has quite a lot of NPCs and from what we've seen so far of BOTW, it doesn't seenm like it is as densely populated as Farcry 3 or 4. Vegetation, except for the grass, is also quite simple compared to what's found in the FarCry series. I don't see what's interactive about the vegetation in BOTW except that you can cut trees and grass... And that feature doesn't look like it's anything for which you should wet your pants. Cool feature, but nothing impressive or demanding there. As for it being a bigger world, that's a non-argument. It's not like the world is fully loaded with features and detail at all time. It's streaming just like any other open world game, with distant objects having next to no level of details, no less.

From a gameplay perspective, yes it matters.  Wind effects fire propogation and gliding.  So being able to easily see how it is moving through dry grass for example is influencial. 

However, I would say such environmental details in sound and animation are absolutely crucial to the games aesthetic tone.  What they have shown and described is a desolate, melancholy setting atmosphere.  They want you to feel like you are wondering the ruins of a once great kingdom now overgrown.  As such, there's not as dense an NPC or animal population as in, say, Skyrim.  There are NPCs, animals, and towns (all those have been confirmed), but there's a major focus on the land and environment themselves.  What the small details like the abundance of ambient sounds and wind effects on grass and trees accomplishes is a sense of energy and life in the world without NPCs.  Most games like Skyrim use creatures and characters and other NPCs to create a lively world.  Take away those aspects and the environment is really quite static and lifeless.  Breath of the Wild, not so.  They are going for a world that feels alive and breathing even though empty.  For that purpose, those minor details of environmental interaction and motion are very important. 

From a gameplay perspective, yes it matters.  Wind effects fire propogation and gliding.  So being able to easily see how it is moving through dry grass for example is influencial. 

However, I would say such environmental details in sound and animation are absolutely crucial to the games aesthetic tone.  What they have shown and described is a desolate, melancholy setting atmosphere.  They want you to feel like you are wondering the ruins of a once great kingdom now overgrown.  As such, there's not as dense an NPC or animal population as in, say, Skyrim.  There are NPCs, animals, and towns (all those have been confirmed), but there's a major focus on the land and environment themselves.  What the small details like the abundance of ambient sounds and wind effects on grass and trees accomplishes is a sense of energy and life in the world without NPCs.  Most games like Skyrim use creatures and characters and other NPCs to create a lively world.  Take away those aspects and the environment is really quite static and lifeless.  Breath of the Wild, not so.  They are going for a world that feels alive and breathing even though empty.  For that purpose, those minor details of environmental interaction and motion are very important. 

Killzone 3 is indeed an incredibly technically demanding game for its hardware, with very impressive texturing, shading, geometry, and post-processing. It's one of the best looking games of the 7th gen, in my opinion.

Still though, it's a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison to pit a linear action game against a massive open world one. As a more contained experience, Killzone 3 has the luxury of being able to focus its rendering budget into a smaller area.

A more like-for-like point of comparison for Breath of the Wild would be similar open world titles on PS3/360, like Skyrim or Far Cry 2/3/4.

I agree that Killzone 3 looks really amazing, its graphics are probably the best I've played on PS3 after GOW 3 and Ascension, but it also has a bit more open levels, much more advanced AI, which probably is required more in shooting games, and physics but it doesn't run at the 40-50fps that both GOW games run at.

On topic Skyrim is a terrible comparison to make, the game looks much worse than any other big release of that year on PS3 and 360. Far Cry 3 looks good but probably doesn't take advantage of either console's capability like an exclusive game like BOTW does and even then games like Batman Arkham City and GTA V look better while also open world. And I do think both look better than BOTW, but its hard to compare these games.