you don't know what you're talking about 

Hardly seems likely everyone has been saying how easy it is to develop for Switch and both the ARM processors and Nvidia GPU is well documented with lots of refined development tools. I mean there's like billions of ARM chips running code on the planet.

Games with a lot of players and online are going to be very cpu resource hungry. From what has been previously written wifi processing takes cpu resources on Switch and going by games like Need for Speed Most Wanted which had good graphics on wii u but they had to cut down the number of online players compared to ps3 and 360 due to lack of cpu resources so I think that is most likely the issue. Switch only has 14,000 mips cpu processing, which compares badly to ps3 and 360 but is more than wii u at about 9000 mips. That would be my best guess for the issue. Perhaps another reason not to pay for the Nintendo online service if online games perform to a lower level than single player offline games.

What? Of course we care about performance. What a silly statement...

Yeah look at who are making  stink about it. The ones who didnt and never will play the game lmao

I played the testfire in both modes, didn't notice any difference.

Yeah, I see globalisateur is citing you. So globalisateur is guessing.

guesssing what ? 

He did pixel count and second screen had native 530p resolution. 

That's why it looked so much worse than docked one.

That's not great tbh. The Switch is powerful enough. I thought it would have been higher.

Most people didn't, but suddlenly someone post a number and everything is horrible.

Serious question why do you bother always posting nintendo graphics/performance/etc when you as a person never will even play them? I mean i kno yhe answer to that never mind smh