|Mr Puggsly said:
Switch has shown in multiple cases it can handle modern games, albeit at a much lower visual fidelity. At some point though I'm not so impressed anymore and its just par for the course. MK11 on Switch is fine, these ports are now just looking like what I expect. People act like every new port means something, but they all kinda hit the same level. They play like other consoles with much lower visual fidelity (muddy/blurry). Sticking with UE3 helped as well I'm sure.
I'm curious to see Doom Eternal on Switch, but I think its gonna look exactly like what we expect, other id shooters but just a little more polished.
7th gen games ended when physically based rendering started to becoming the norm. Maybe that's partly why Switch ports need to reduce the resolution so much. Its interesting to see Switch doing these modern effects, but 7th gen games were generally not this blurry and muddy. Hence, I prefer games that look polished and sharp versus "modern." That's kinda the secret to 1st party Nintendo games. They don't push cutting edge graphics or effects but they're very polished and age well.
Not all Switch ports hit the same level; they can range quite wildly from total garbage (Ark, WWE 2K18) to superb. (Outlast II, Hellblade) I'll wait on DF, but for the moment MK11 seems to be solid.
It's not just a matter of resolution; there were many sub-HD games on PS3/360, one of the reasons demanding Switch ports like Doom and Wolfenstein II look soft is that they use temporal AA, which was rare last gen but has since become pretty much industry standard. Temporal AA eradicates aliasing much more effectively than the AA methods more commonly used on last gen, but at the cost of softening the image. PS3/360 games generally have a lot more jaggies than Switch games.