I can totally see your point that 32GB may not be enough for even one game.  I would very much support you and be dissatisfied as well if Nintendo went proprietary on their expanded memory (see PS2, Vita, Gamecube, ect).  I personally think that offering up memory expansion via a very common format gives the consumer the most options available.  You can expand however you want or not at all. 

This is more important in this stage of the game since the one and only SKU is already supply constrained.  I'd be pissed at Nintendo if I were the average consumer that bought almost all my games physically and bought very little digitally but i had to pay $50 more for something I felt I didn't need (more internal storage) because that was the only SKU sitting on the store shelf. Coming off the WiiU (which I also felt handled storage just fine) I'd try to keep my MSRP as low as possible too i.e let the consumer decide if they need more storage.

edit: I'll even go one further I would likely suspect Nintendo intentionally kept the supply low on the base model so they could sell the more expensive SKU if I had to pay more for something I felt i didn't need. I know it may be hard for some to imagine, people accusing Nintendo of using scarcity to their advantage, but it does sometimes happen.  Imagine some of the outrage if the cost was on par with Apple and they charged $100 more for 64GB vs 32GB or $150-$200 more for 128 GB and the 128GB model was the only one that was normally on a retailer's shelf.

If there is one thing I woudl think people would know by now is that Nintnedo game NEVER look as good in pictures. I see lots of other games pics and can sometimes think they are real. When in motion, the game looks nowhere NEAR close to real. It's almost like there is some sort of photoshopping going on with the pics. Meanwhile, Nintendo pics never do their games justice. You need to see it in motion to see its beauty.

Prove your point. Name a few PS3 games with a mandatory install above 32 GBs.

NBA 2K18 will require a microSD card to play the full game when it comes out on NS or you'll only be able to play a portion of it. Any game that exceeds or that is right at 32 GB will require a micoSD card to play. Imagine a game like the witcher 3 which is a big game. This isn't really a concern to nintendo gamers who are just gonna play nintendo first party games because nintendo is able to compress or keep their game's file size down Like I said before it's gonna be problematic for anyone wants to play 3rd party games on it and it will likely influence the decision of any third party devs. Nintendo should offer more SKUs with better internal storage or with cards just for the sake of the fans.  

In reponse to your edit, Nintendo has a partnership with scandisk so that likely played a part in the size of the internal memory space. It's possible any company plays around with their SKUs in that sense because they rather people bought one over the other. They definitely do that when they're phasing out a SKU but that's normal. 

I'll be honest and say that I was being a little hyperbolic with that but.....  TLOU required 50 gb of free space if you got it digitally. Physcially, it's 27 gb if I remember correctly. With DLC and updates, it would probably shoot ya over 32 gb easily. So there ya go. Later on in that gen I had to get a bigger HD than my 80 gb one because it wasn't enough space. My 500 gb HD on my PS4 isn't enough these days. 32 GB of storage just seems very small to me but I guess i'm being unreasonable with nintendo.

You're not unreasonable, WiiU deluxe had 32GB internal storage. Why is there no Switch deluxe with 128GB internal, a charging grip instead of the inert plastic one and 1-2 switch included. I would have paid $100 more for that. Yet now I'm looking at file sizes again before buying anything on the eShop, which means I'm simply not checking the eShop at all to save time...

I'm too lazy to go out and shop for a suitable micro SD or whatever goes in where it needs to go in. Yet I had the money burning in my pocket on release day or rather night.

I'll be honest and say that I was being a little hyperbolic with that but.....  TLOU required 50 gb of free space if you got it digitally. Physcially, it's 27 gb if I remember correctly. With DLC and updates, it would probably shoot ya over 32 gb easily. So there ya go. Later on in that gen I had to get a bigger HD than my 80 gb one because it wasn't enough space. My 500 gb HD on my PS4 isn't enough these days. 32 GB of storage just seems very small to me but I guess i'm being unreasonable with nintendo.

The 27 GB install for TLOU isn't mandatory.

After looking at some screenshots and footage, nah it doesn't look as good as Racthet and Clank on the ps3.

Odyssey looks way better than R&C PS3, which while pretty for its time looks flat and muddy compared to Odyssey. The lighting is the main difference; Odyssey's is clearly much more modern and nuanced, as expected from the Switch's far newer GPU.

Then there's resolution: A Crack in Time runs at a mere 960x704, while Odyssey's E3 build was 1280x720 and if Splatoon 2 is anything to go by, the final game may well be considerably higher when docked. Crack in Time also had significant framerate drops.

All in all, R&C is simply no match for Odyssey graphically.