So it is a very flexible definition to accomodate for a very big processing difference... because at the same time we have the claims of very easy to differentiate the X1X and PS4Pro version of a game from true 4K to checkerboard 4K, and a 50% difference in processing power.

Well, you'll have trouble getting too many people to agree on what is a big difference versus a minor one, opinions vary. With something like depth of field, you can save a lot of processing power by switching it off, and the player will often be none the wiser as if you haven't seen a comparison you may just think it was always not there.

If the gamer will hardly notice than that is the definition of badly used performance budget.

Pretty much every non-indie game of the current gen uses effects or techniques that a lot of gamers won't even notice. How many gamers are ever going to notice the performance budget Naughty Dog spent to make Drake's ears translucent to light in Uncharted 4?

Sure people won't know the details and breakdown. But when you basically defend that people aren't even differentiating two versions made on consoles that have that much performance difference then it gets on ridiculous level of poorly used performance budget.

As much as Ark is in no way a demonstration of Switch capability, a game that looks about the same on Switch and PS4 certainly isn't putting their performance budget on the right place.

Snake Pass doesn't look the same on Switch and PS4. I never said it did. PS4 version is cleaner, has additional effects missing on Switch, and has a locked framerate where Switch can occasionally dip. It's just that the cuts are very carefully chosen so that they save a lot of processing time without making the game look like shit.

You do understand that there is difference being subtle, not super noticeable to not looking like shit. You need to decide yourself because in one post you are putting that the player doesn't notice the difference, in the other you say you very much do but Switch version isn't shit looking. There is a very big gap between the two stances you said.

And I'm pretty ok acknowledging that Snake Pass looks fine on Switch and it was celebrated as a very good Switch Port.

I feel there's been a misunderstanding; when I said that the loss of depth of field wouldn't be noticed by players, I meant it like this: a player who has only played the Switch version and hasn't watched DF's analysis will not notice it's lacking DOF, because they won't know that it's there in the other versions. It's absence doesn't make the game look glaringly unfinished.

Something like implementation of foggy in silent hill to hide the fact they couldn't render much? Like you can fell you are little shortsighted but not enough that it breaks the immersion.

Well from a feeling if it was me deving the game or SSM/ND they would probably use that big difference in power to show it more. Like it's really distingishable for several games the differences between X1X and PS4Pro and that is a much smaller power dif.

But yes, we can agree that Snake Pass doesn't seem an ugly game, but considering the type of asset it's hard to see why they couldn't make it 1080 and perhaps one or two of less noticeable effects be removed.