I'm glad Nintendo simply sticking with 720P and 900P so they can push for better frame rates like 60 FPS. Since graphics will become dated within at least a year or two but frame rate is forever and has more impact on a game.

I'm pretty sure most of these games will hit at least 900p in console mode, unless they're running sub-720p in handheld mode. Time will tell.

Completely different level of graphics though.  The ps3, 360 and wii u could do rock solid 1080p 60fps in Rayman Legends but that's mostly a 2D sprite based scrolling game however pretty. 

Alternatively they could stick to 720p and use some decent anti-aliasing which will make upscaling on many tv's more effective than a 900p resolution without AA. On my tv at least a 720p resolution with AA seems pretty good but Mario kart on wii u at 720p with no AA is noticably jaggy and a bit rough looking on the edges.

I'd prefer more details over a slightly better resolution.

480 60fps > 1080p 30fps. Bite me :P

(2560x1080p 75fps though... love ya PC :D )

The 9th gen which the Switch is part of is going to be all about 4k when the ps5 and xbox Two release. So I'd argue 900p isn't even enough.

Only having to spend $300.00 every five years and being able to take my gaming system with me everywhere I go> 2560x1080P 75FPS imo. The work and upfront costs to build and maintain a gaming PC aren't worth it for me. 

Not to mention... physical media.

Is resolution seriously that important? Not like 720p will force you to experience Superman64-level graphics. 

I still think Batman: Arkham City on the PS3 is a gorgeous  game. Really no need to constantly whine for high resolution.

I have my Wii U, which I assume has less resolution than Switch capabilities, hooked up to a massive projector in my basement, and everything on it looks beautiful (except for Starfox zero... just eww). As long as the Switch can pull off that I'm good, if it does better than w/e.