Not necessarily true at all. Would you say Goldeneye on N64 (realistic) is more demanding than Ratchet & Clank on PS4? (Cartoon)

A game with a cartoony art style can easily be more demanding than a game with a realistic style if it uses more advanced rendering techniques, more memory, higher resolution and framerate, etc.

The Switch has next-generation blast processing. Plaything 3 does not.

The Switch can download more ram. Plaything 3 does not.

The switch has a full-color display, Plaything 3 does not.

The Switch welcomes you to the next level.

The Switch is not some Plaything.This is your world,is your world ready to Switch?

If you put enough high res textures and polygons into a game it will surely be very demanding, cartoony or not. But most cartoon games have less high quality textures and polygons than their realistic counterparts.

Point is that most cartoony styled games don't need those or won't aim for those. Which is why they age better. Ratchet and Clank being somewhat of an exception, when it comes to maximising hardware. Although  Spiderman will be way more demanding than Ratchet and Clank. Although the latter is still a visual masterpiece and will age rather well. Horizon and Uncharted are also visually more demanding. But probably won't age as well since realism is defined by lightning complexity, polygons, high res textures etc.

It's still a gross oversimplification to say that a cartoony game will automatically be less demanding than one that attempts realism. The games would need to be examined on an individual basis. For instance, a cartoony game that pushes the Switch will be more graphically demanding than a realistic one that pushes PS3/360, simply because the Switch is considerably stronger hardware.

Nobody is saying that. people are saying thats it's much easier to get impressive results with cartoony graphics because they are not demanding as realistic, as well as hardly any developer is  pushing the envelope with cartoony graphics, ratchet and clank remake is a small budget title, and look at how good it looks.

Again though, this is a reductive oversimplification, primarily used to downplay Nintendo games and hardware. A cartoon game built to take good advantage of 3GB of RAM and Tegra X1 will be more demanding than a realistic game running on less than 500MB of RAM and a GPU from 2005/2006.

you are taking things out of context, of course a cartoony games can be more demanding then a realistic game, just based on the resolution alone, or many other factors, like how many enemies on screen, environment detail, and lighting engine , but making realistic assets are just more demanding then cartoony assets.

What I object to is the notion of "realistic is more demanding than cartoony" being bandied about like it's some universal one-size-fits-all truth, and the fact that it's almost always used as an excuse to try to downplay the graphics of Nintendo games and hardware. 

I swear, Nintendo could put out a Switch 2 that's as strong as a PS4 when portable and Xbox One X when docked, and put out a Mario game with graphics well beyond Ratchet and Clank on PS4, and some people would still be like "oh God of War 3/GTA5 PS3 looks better because realistic graphics are more demanding!" It's getting tiresome.

i'

i'm not seeing how GOW3 and und uncharted 3 are showing there age compared to this, yes it's technically more demanding cause it runs at 60ffps which is very demanding, but those graphics, are a step down, aside from running higher resolution   

They can be compared, but saying the console is more powerful based on that developer getting better results doesn't make any sense to me.

Resident evil 4 looked better then anything on xbox, yet we  know xbox was the superior hardware. I have read  enough beyond3d to know a technically superior games is highly subjective, you will have arguments all day with out going anywhere, with multiplatform comparison it's simple, based on facts, and multiple games to compare the hardware properly.