BOTW's GI solution is actually quite good by the standards of the hardware; you're not supposed to consciously "know it's there" but rather to see the end result which is objects being more naturally bedded into their surroundings. A simple but effective GI solution is better than not having one at all.

We can ultimately gauge which is more demanding out of the two games by comparing how they perform on the same hardware; Switch runs RDR at a fixed 1080p, but BOTW at a dynamic 900p. This is because BOTW pushes the system harder.

Yea thats a good point there i thought about that, but  honestly it just seems more like a early port and developer tools weren't developed as much, like switch should be powerful enough to run botw at 30fps/1080p. it does give a indication that's probably doing way more interms of maybe complex physics, since red dead is pretty barren like botw, it's a good point though. botw is dynamic 900p i thought it was locked

It is running on 360.
Go back and actually watch the video and try again.

I'm looking at the thumbnail for the DF CryEngine 3 analysis video. I see it says "Xbox 360" plain as day on the bottom right. To see someone ask how it would run on 360/PS3 with that thumbnail quoted is astounding. Like seriously man, what the heck? Pemalite, I admire your patience.

I was saying that look how it runs on 360, performance wise. its runs terrible for a fps. 20fps-25fps and sub hd, and you admire his patience lol? a person that thinks he can look at game by eye test alone and know if it techically more demanding on the hardware as a fact which is infact impossible. you can't just look at graphics cause they have some more features and say yup this is more demadning on the hardware here is quote by the developer that did the BOTW GRAPHIC STUDY AGAIN.

BOTW's engine is considerably more advanced than Xenoblade X's. However, just because a game engine has a more advanced feature set, it doesn't automatically guarantee that hardware can run a less advanced engine better

Case in point, even though it's not as feature rich XBX still has a lot of processing pouring into the wildlife routines. You can also fly anywhere on the map at a greater speed than you can glide in BOTW. Geometry rendering and object elements drawn in far distances can occasionally be more complex in XBX. None of these things are feature rich, but they a cost all the same.

Now in something like GTAV the process pouring into tons of NPC's, traffic, dynamic weather system, you can fly in jets, and go 200mph in cars the proccess pouring is on another level something that would probably run at 15-19fps on wiiu. thats why you can't just look at a game and say yup this is techically more demandning on the hardware and is a fact. I would say that GTAV is the more demadning game on hardware then something botw, of course i have no problem with that but permalite like he is the all knowing and his opinion is fact.

Another thing that points to 360 being more powerful is MGSV. kojima productions worked years exclusive on ps3. when it came out the 360 version ran much better, also one of the most technically impressive games for the 7th gen. yea i think it's pretty clear the superior hardware is 360 overall.

PS4 has a better GPU, faster RAM, and no games (as far as I'm aware on searching) that run at 720p as the maximum resolution. 900p was pretty much the bare minimum for resolution on PS4. Xbox One had a few games at 720p.

Report: Devs say PS4 vs Xbox One performance is 'obvious' and 'significant' | Shacknews

Devs thought of a PS4 as more capable by an obvious margin, but I agree that it doesn't seem like a big difference to the eye. 

Diablo IV, The Hong Kong Massacre, Ark Survival Evolved, and Magnetic: Cage Closed all top out at 720p on PS4.

There were a few other sub-900p PS4 games too like Tekken 7 which was 864p. It wasn't common, but it wasn't unheard of either.

Thank you for the fact check. While my point stands overall that PS4 almost universally performed equal or better to the XBONE, I was unaware how close it was sometimes. 

I don't know about you or the others on this thread, but I find it so misleading that the 7th Generation is often called the HD Generation. While Wii was intentionally underpowered and Blue Ocean, it had no HD support. Xbox 360 and PS3 had a maximum resolution of 720p in almost every game, with some even lower than that. 360 had under a dozen if I found accurate results on a search and PS3 only had a few dozen 1080p games. 

8th Generation was the true "HD Generation" in my mind. Wii U supported 720p almost all the time with some games higher than that. Xbox One and PS4 had no sub 720p games that I know of and plenty at 900p and some at 1080p. And then PS4 Pro and Xbox One X opened up higher resolutions but with some 4K.

The 9th Generation or maybe the upcoming 10th Generation would be the "4K Generation". 

PS4 was objectively stronger than Xbone, yes. The extent to which the gap is meaningful depends on the person I suppose.

There are a couple of sub-HD Xbox One games I believe, such as Ark Survival Evolved, but they are a rarity. 

It's hard to rule a single generation as "HD" or "4K" when each individual game is free to use whatever resolution they like; for instance, despite many labelling PS5/Xbox Series X as 4K consoles, Immortals of Aveum is 720p on both, Lord of the Fallen can drop to 648p on both, etc.