Well... as accepted by goodnightmoon... since we haven't ever seem a game that looks like GoW3 or LTOU on WiiU the machine is uncapable of doing it.

GTA V and BOTW can't be directly compared. GTA V's open world is filled with NPC's, buildings and traffic, something that BOTW doesn't have. Also BOTW has cel shaded graphics so a lot less details are required for it. Both have impressive physics, but PS3's CPU has more powerful and higher clocked individual cores than PS4, so it should handle BOTW's physics. BOTW is better in terms of framerate than last gen GTA V, that's the only place its better.

Also GOW 3 can run on PS3 at 45-60fps so BOTW would run on it easily. GOW 3 had incredible scale to it, some of the bosses were bigger than entire levels in some other games. Not open world, but as they are all animated that makes it more impressive and it still looks like a PS4 game on PS3.

What an amazing denial. Zelda botw would NEVER run on ps360 as it is. it would take a downgrade to 540p, 24fps most of the time, as well as reducided poly count, textures, very reduced draw distance, enemy AI, physics...

Skyrim, GTA5 and any other ps360 game are crushed by Zelda Botw, Xenoblade X, as well as most wii u exclusives. Deal with it.

Only the characters in Breath of the Wild are cel shaded; rock, snow, trees, pavement, water, dirt, etc all use regular textures. And rendering a world as big and detailed as BotW takes more than just CPU grunt, it also places considerable demands on RAM and GPU power, two areas where Wii U exceeds PS3 and 360.

Also, GOW3 looks as good as it does because it is highly scripted; levels are linear, the developers control the camera so they can always micro-manage exactly what's on screen at any given time, and a lot its eye candy is smoke and mirrors. It looks flashy but its not as technically demanding as an open world game like Breath of the Wild.

I doubt resolution would be the primary downgrade; I think the most noticeable cut would have to be level of detail. With half as much RAM, you couldn't fit as many assets into play at once, leading to a lot more pop-in.

God of War III? Are we talking about this game below? I think people really have selective memories.

The physics are the most impressive part from what I've seen. One thing Nintendo has always been better than anyone else at is that sense of freedom to move in any direction you like in a 3D environment, but they've never combined it with an open world before. As much as I love other open worlds like Bethesda's and such, the movements can feel a bit clunky... from what I've seen so far that's not the case here.

The Playstation 3's CPU isn't powerful. It never was even on release and certainly isn't today, I apologise if you fell for Sony's marketing, it was powerful for a console, for sure, but pales in comparison to even tablet CPU's today.

I bet all you are doing is taking the floating point numbers and comparing it against Jaguar? Wrong way to do things. You can take a 1 Teraflop GPU and it can beat a 2 Teraflop GPU, the amount of flops is useless when comparing different processors of completely different architectures, instruction sets, heck even generation.

Not only that but the Playstation 3's CPU only excels in iterative refinement floating point, Jaguar excels in everything.
Now I am not sure if you are aware, but games use all sorts of math, so you cannot strictly render a game using iterative refinement floating point, you may need your bog standard single precision, double precision, integer and more all at once.

Essentially it will be like a car race, Jaguar will be able to maintain 100km/h during the entire race regardless of conditions, whilst Cell will be doing 50km/h during the entire race, however the Cell will have an occasional "boost" when road conditions, fuel type, wind speed and direction all play to it's core strength and then it can hit 150km/h temporarily.
Cell might have the top speed, but it will loose the race every single time.

Not only that, but Jaguar is smarter, it's more efficient, it has more SIMD instructions, it has better branch tree prediction, it has better bandwidth management, it has larger caches, it's out-of-order and there is a degree of cache coherency, it's lower latency, everything.

Cell has more in common with the first generation Intel Atom's than it does with a modern out-of-order high-performance CPU architecture and it's performance meets those expectations as well.

Oh, are we still talking about games that AREN'T Zelda?

Fun.

Regardless of whether or not this could run on PS360, the design choices here are intentional. The cel-shading, for example, means low-res textures, which are easier to render and, if stylized properly, look absolutely amazing. It free up a lot of resources on the Wii U, and (unless a similar technique was used) wouldn't properly replicate onto a PS360.

That said, the PS3 itself uses a fucking crazy-intense processor. When games were properly optimized for it, they would look on par with games rendered by mid-tier PCs half a decade later. Off the top of my head, Uncharted always looked great; The Last of Us is one of the most perfect Swan Songs for a console in the history of gaming; inFAMOUS 2 is (in my opinion) still one of the greatest sandbox games ever made; and while it might not look amazing at first for textures, Demon's Souls (a game from 2009) is capable of regularly putting out 35-40fps. Were a game like this to be put on the PS3 exclusively, yes; it would suffer for its lack of RAM. But that hasn't stopped developers in the past from continuously blowing our fucking minds.

That all said, this constant comparison between PS360 and Wii U is getting old. 360 is simply behind- that's all there is to it. PS3 lags even further behind in terms of RAM, but let's keep in mind that processor is a fucking monster. The Wii U benefits from being a newer machine with cheaper access to better RAM than what PS360 had. I know I said this game couldn't properly replicate to PS360, but optimization is a crazy thing... However, the resources it would take to do this on PS360 would cost much more than what it is costing on Wii U.

No. It doesn't use a crazy processor.
And games didn't look good because of the CPU either, the CPU was mostly used for basic framebuffer/overlay effects.

PC's from that generation could be equipped with a Core 2 Quad... And guess what? Those chips could play that entire generation of games, what you are describing is the graphics rendering, which is... *Gasp* the main job of a GPU.

The more you know.

Well, it was still a crazy processor. Must've been why it was so hard to code with, it kept seeing code that wasn't there.

I'm aware of what a GPU is, I know whats job is, and I'm aware that a CPU only needs to be strong enough so as to not bottleneck the GPU. Please don't talk down to me like an idiot. I know you're better than that.

Iirc, didn't the Cell Processor help with the workload of the RSX? I could have swore I read that somewhere.