The human eye can only see 30 FPS - Nintendo..

Seriously 30 fps 720 p or I...That zelda trailer looked amazing, I loved going on youtube and checking people's reactions while Zelda is a franchise I normally not care about.

Btw the switch is not aimed to win over the Performance heroes.

How can anyone be disappointed with Zelda at 30 fps? There has never been a 3D Zelda with more than 30 fps. Hell, Majora's Mask was more like 20 fps (tho that was painful at times).

I actually prefer 30 fps in 3rd person adventure games over 60 fps same way as I prefer movies at 24 fps over 48 (looking at you, The Hobbit), because I want it to feel like an immersive adventure, not like I am watching a video recording.

It's an artistic choice; Nintendo knows which games need 60 fps (mario kart, metroid prime series, f-zero, etc.) and games from those franchises always deliver rock solid 60 fps.

It has nothing to do with the performance of the switch, really, because you push the hardware to the graphical fidelity you want for the framerate you target. So even tho the PS4 Pro is a lot more powerful, it will still have many 30 fps games, because developeres prioritize fidelity over framerate. Sometimes that's the right choice, sometimes not.

I don't give a shit about the processor or graphics card of the Switch or any other console; all I care about are that the games are developed in accordance with the limit of the hardware so that the experience is enjoyable. In my experience Nintendo is better at that than most developers.

The guys playing imagination ping-pong may have robbed me of my ability to get an erection. Ever again.

GameXplain who is usually pretty pro-Nintendo had somewhat negative reactions as well. Like Digital Foundry they say the best thing about the system is being able to play Wii U level games on the go. They are worried about price. 

This is what anyone with realistic expectations would think. hell I thought thats exaclty what it was gonna be

Looking at it as a handheld screen

3DS - 240p - 3.5 in
Wii U - 480p - 6.2 in
Vita - 544p - 5 in
Switch - 720p - 6.2 in

Based off my extensive experience with the 3DS and Vita I actually am quite impressed by the Switch. If the games are there and can find a way to make battery not an issue it is an appealing handheld.

Tagging

The handheld experience is what I mainly care about since it is the mode I would mainly use

I have a JXD S7800 with a 7" 1280x800 which is a 16:10 ratio panel, with 11% more pixels and a 12.9% larger screen than the Switch.
So it has slightly lower pixel density. It isn't enough.
It's only "Okay" on the JXD because I only spent like $150 AUD a few years ago. The Switch is over 3x the price.
Great for emulation on the Go though.

Now the successor to that device is the JXD S192, Tegra powered, which has a 1920x1200, 7" screen for about $300 AUD. (Switch is $470 AUD.)

Even at 7" I still wanted a slightly larger screen (The form factor can handle it too.) so 8" in 16:10 or 9" in 16:9, with a 1920x1200 or 1920x1080 resolution respectively would be perfect.

And at the Switch's price point, is what I would completely expect.
The Switch isn't just being compared to home consoles, it is also being compared to tablets, phones and other handhelds.

Now my Phone on the other hand has a 5.7" screen, so only half an inch smaller than the Switch. But packs a massive 2560x1440 panel.
And it is absolutely glorious. The pixel density is insane, but also completely unrealistic for something like the Switch... But you can buy controller addons for  phones.


So then it all comes down to the games. The Switch will have Nintendo exclusives.

But without a doubt the Switch is expensive for the Display Size and Resolution, but hopefully Nintendo will release a "revised" device later down the line that rectifies that, which they have historically done since the Gameboy starting with the Gameboy Pocket.

I agree.
They could have included extra NAND in the cart for updates and DLC next to the ROM.
But there could be issues if the DLC and Updates exceed the NAND size, plus introduce extra cost.

It would have also meant that updates go wherever the cart went, which would have saved time and data.

I agree.

Hence why I gladly pay $200 for a 3DS or Vita and an additional $30/each for games, but wouldn't pay even $50 for the latest iPhone if all it did was games that were $1 or free.  

I understand money issues, but as I've got older time has become a commodity and if I'm gaming I am fine paying a premium enjoying the experience rather than getting a free, but unenjoyable, one.  In regards to specs and price I'd say the Switch is what I wanted from a 3DS or Vita successor.  Just waiting for 2018 when library fills out.

They view in absolutes and intellectual analysis.

If you call that narrow then you have been brainwashed.