I'm sure Nintendo can create titles that go for more realistic graphics and such. They have published games like Eternal Darkness and their own Metroid series is close to realistic than most of their franchises. Heck, Miyamoto worked with Kojima in developing Metal Gear Solid: Twin Snakes. Then you got Twilight Princess that was an answer to all the critics and fans who wanted a more realistic Zelda after Wind Waker.

It's just that Nintendo is likely not interested in making games with realistic graphics. They don't rely on making games with that kind of design philosophy in comparison with Sony and Microsoft. Most here should know the story by now about Nintendo's development philosophies. Neither is philosophy is better than the other. Ultimately, they all seek to create great gaming experiences.

Not really because technically extensive games released towards the end of the generation like COD (I know you don't appreciate the series but the technical leads behind it are highly talented like it or not), Mass Effect 3, Ghost Recon Future Soldier, Max Payne 3, Sleeping Dogs, Borderlands 2, Arkham Origins, MGSV and especially Shadow of Mordor all showed Sony's platform still struggling despite their competent efforts ... (the latter most example highlights 360's most unique advantage and most likely resides in hardware as well)

Nothing is a slam dunk in the bag like you seem to think it is ... (technical superiority is more than just graphics and higher resolution textures) 

It's not even about paying lip service, that's just reality. Sometimes ports or even acceptable ones at that really aren't possible with divergent hardware design ... 

The same applies the other way around. (you don't benchmark hardware based on specific exclusives, coming to a fair consensus requires more than benchmarking just technically impressive titles) You really can't discount the many other cases just because a few games shine on a specific piece of hardware ... 

And as for trying to argue otherwise, this former developer would seem to think so ... (along with his many other interesting proceeding posts)

We can make the same argument for previous AMD vs Nvidia hardware but nothing is going to change the fact most code ran slower on the former despite having a "few" key fast paths ... (what is and what isn't superior is nearly entirely situational and I don't think you understand this) 

Nah, tessellation is dead for the most part just like geometry shaders are. Most AAA games don't even try to implement the feature and what you said about most Frostbite games featuring it is not true since the last game to feature it was Star Wars Battlefront ... 

And the small uptick you saw is probably within margin of error as tessellation isn't explicitly implemented in the game. BTW consoles are GCN 2 ... 

Tessellation is just a bad idea in general. It will forever remain as one of the biggest crap stain on real time graphics technology, Microsoft and the industry screwed up horribly at the time and now graphics programmers/hardware designers have to suffer for whoever wished for it. I seriously wish the industry had some more foresight otherwise we wouldn't end up with a crowded x86 opcode space or Spectre/Meltdown ... (Why couldn't we have hardware for vertex compression when tessellation is just a bad form of geometry compression ?)

Hopefully async compute does get traction since it's also supported in Apple Metal ... (even though they're designing their own GPUs although not desktop graphics)

leap over 360/ps3

I thought we chased you outta here!

you did. but you didnt.

mandella effect

I'm a big fan of nvidia GPU's and no question the Switch graphic hardware is more powerful but that chart doesn't allow for the huge 256GB/s bandwidth between the 360 GPU and its dedicated 10MB of video memory which is often cited for being why many 360 games outperform PS3. The wii u has only 12.8GB/s of main memory bandwidth but again 32MB of high bandwidth memory. Same design philosophy in xbox one too with its own 32MB of high bandwidth memory. It's a design  approach in all 3 consoles that does work well for compensating for lower main memory bandwidth. 

I think when comparing Switch and the older consoles really the only weaknesses that come into play are low CPU performance and maybe lack of memory bandwidth, the GPU architecture is hugely improved and in the case of docked performance is clearly at a much higher performance level. Add to that the much larger main memory negates much of the memory shuffling, streaming solutions the 350, PS3 and wii u are forced to do which can slow down those systems the larger the game engine becomes. Seeing the ps3 really slow down with games like Skyrim where it simply hasn't really got the memory to comfortably handle that game is not something the Switch has to worry about. 

Again my view is as weaker hardware the Switch won't get the more ambitious games of today which will be reserved for the more powerful consoles and PC except for a few cutdown compromised versions occasionally and will only get a small number of conversions of ambitious games of the ps3/350 era even though it could enhance such games unless CPU intensive so ultimately the Switch will never have the wide range of impressive ambitious games as last gen or current gen purely for commercial reasons. There will always be pressure on Switch games to be simplified not just because cartridges are expensive especially for third party developers but also because Switch has very limited storage. I mean how many 50GB games can you fit in 32GB or 32GB with a 64GB micro SD card?

LA Noire on Switch has superior resolution and textures which shows hte superior GPU at work but inferior frame rate, much less animated objects in distance and actual gameplay slowdown compared to PS3 and 350 which shows the weaker CPU struggling. Generally the gameplay experience is much better on ps3 and 360 but eye candy is better on Switch.

We are also seeing many Switch games go sub 720P in portable mode below that of 360 and PS3. If it wasn't for the huge memory advantage of Switch and the later architecture of the GPU there may be a case to say portable Switch is inferior to PS3 and 360. As it is I would put portable Switch performance as broadly at the same level as PS3 and 360 in my opinion. Especially as many games on Switch will try to lower the performance level in order to maximise battery runtime when in portable mode so there is always pressure to use less resources undocked. 

Again though delivering pretty much 360/PS3 performance on a portable console is pretty amazing. I'm still actually pretty happy with the ps3 and 360 performance level although ps4 and xbone is nicer. I don't think I'm alone with that either especially with the huge success of the Switch worldwide. I think we are all very happy with the performance level the Switch is delivering, its not like realistically we could have expected much more from a portable system. My only issue is I wished they tweaked the CPU's a bit higher maybe 1.4Ghz? Just to plug the CPU shortfall over 360 to prevent issues like we see in LA Noire.

exclusives are not a great to compare hardware at all, people said 360 could never run uncharted 1 or 2, or even kill zone early, then 360 came out with better looking game, what's technically  more impressive is highly subjective, for Example DF thinks halo 4 stands up to any ps4 exclusive. comparing a different game with different engine, different art different developers is none sense imo, for example ps4 exclusives make xbox  one exclusives look last gen, it makes ps4 seem way more powerful then 40%, multiplatform on the other hand give a much picture of how the hardware stacks up, its not perfect but it tell where developers are struggling with the hardware. 

Hahaha damn now they have nothing to say to that xD Good find my man xDDD

You do realise you said that GTAV for you is more impresive and that this guy is Nintendo fanboy!? :D