Hm maybe I'm just misunderstanding how literal you are being, but don't you think there's more to consider than just that when you're talking about it being a "technological showpiece", or perhaps even more so when saying that Shin'En "push the limits" (implying Platinum didn't with Bayonetta 2)? Because I would think both have to do with more than just rendering techniques. Especially when the textures and rendering are low-quality, there are some artifacts, lots of jaggies, and some frame rate issues? (lots of those issues are shared with Bayo 2 granted)

Either way thanks for clarifying   

No worries. :) I'd say it mostly comes down to developer priorities; Shin'en are ex-demoscene guys whose entire gimmick and primary focus as a studio is getting advanced tech running on hardware that on paper shouldn't be able to handle it, and doing so at 60fps. Platinum are more gameplay focused, they don't focus so much on pushing high end effects and stuff, more on creating amazing over-the-top action with the most convenient and practical techniques at hand. Ultimately, Platinum are the better devs for it, Shin'en have certainly never made anything close to as great as the Bayonetta games.

Ah ok! What you're saying makes a lot of sense. I didn't realize that Shin'en were known for progressing the ability to bring forth impressive rendering techniques onto weaker hardware - I just knew "dem games dun look guud!" Lol. Much more of a layman in that regard. Regardless, I see what you mean now. Fast Racing RMX is one of the better looking games on my Switch, too, would be interesting to see what major title they release next (maybe non-racing?). 

Not sure about Switch power, but about XC2, it is: 

The tech in this game is leagues ahead of Xenoblade X. Lighting, shadows, shaders are all modern, there's volumetric lighting and what appears to be physically based rendering, there's temporal antialiasing, there's soft shadows, HDR transitions, cel shaded character outlines and lighting, SSAO and so on. All in an open world game. Interiors are also very detailed.
XC2 features dynamic lights and shadows, volumetric lighting, ssao, physically based shaders and other cutting edge technical features that were absent from X, along with higher res shadows, longer draw distance, better grass, textures, character animations and models and facial animations

Graphics in tech terminology: polygon count, lighting effects, amount of texture detailing possible.

XC2 is more "graphically: impresive. It's more detailed with its textures, has a higher poly count, and renders more models at a time.
Technically 2 has a number of features X does not that make it the more demanding game it is. Godrays, improved lighting, ambient occlusion, a new rendering pipeline, better handling of materials, new folliage solution, improved texture filtering, volumetric cloud simulation, new water shaders, screenspace reflections, higher quality shadows, TAA. Overall an engine much more in line with current generation standards.

Spawn Wave had a very good video on this.  The tl;dr is the Switch in raw FLOPS is only a bit above the theoretical 360 performance ceiling.  However, it is made with technology from 2015.  The 360 is from 2005.  The Switch is in an entire different league in terms of efficiency and toolset.  In short, the system is capable of things the PS360 would find near impossible or entirely so.

As for Xenoblade 2, she is entirely correct.  Like the aesthetic or not, the advancements since X are numerous.

Also, as for the whole Fast Racing vs Bayo2 thing, Fast doesn't handle as much in AI, geometry, etc.  However, the textures are high quality.  But the main thing is the post processing pipeline, which is entirely above and beyond anything we see in Bayo2.  Also, comparing Fast RMX to Neo is a good way of seeing the leap in efficiency and toolset over the Wii U and similar platforms.  Skyrim is another good comparison to see the gap between Switch and 360.

Yeah Neo to RMX is a great showcase of Switch's step up over Wii U; 720p reconstructed from 640x720 on Wii U to straight-up 1080p-900p on Switch, with substantially improved lighting into the bargain.

The recent Darksiders port is also a good example of Switch versus PS360; on last gen the game was 648p with considerable drops below 30fps and screen tearing, on Switch it has two modes; 1080p at a rock solid 30fps, and 810p/60fps with minor drops, both with upgraded textures and models over PS360.

Dark Souls, sub-HD with drops below 10fps on PS360, 1080p-900p with a fairly stable 30fps on Switch.

FIFA, 720p on PS360 to 1080p on Switch with upgraded shaders, grass, and textures.

Darksiders 1 Remaster actually looks better than 2's Remaster iirc

That's a pretty stupid reason to ruin a friendship. Just call her up and say, "I'm sorry, you're right.  Switch is basically an XBone".  It doesn't matter that she's wrong.  Sometimes you just gotta let other people win the argument and go on about your life.   

Did some digging and apparently the last game, MKX, was 1920x1080 on PS4 and around 1360x1080 on Xbone. (So similar in raw pixel count to 900p) 

If these metrics carry over to MK11, 720p docked shouldn't be out of reach for the Switch, although they may opt for a dynamic resolution.

Especially a girl, with all the struggles and stories you read on here with guys not being able to make friends with them.