My perspective maybe be different as I don't own a system more powerful than the Switch; to me Ethan Carter looked great with its dreamy lighting, PBR materials, lush vegetation, etc.
I think we are judging graphics by very different metrics; you're looking at it in terms of the complexity of the processing while I'm looking at it in terms of how polished the final image is.
I think we will simply have to agree to disagree as we have such different perspectives.
I do think you should see some of the things outside the Switch world lol... If you think EC is "polished" as a final image, you are going to be absolutely blown away by Cyberpunk 2077 running maxed out on a PC, hahaha! I'd post the pics I've taken, but those are long deleted since I only took those screenshots for posting on Twitter/YouTube, and my original review of the game was on XSX instead of PC (I later bought it for PC to enjoy ray tracing).
I'm beginning to think that our disagreement won't be coming from perspectives, it's that you might not have seen things that change your standards for what "polished" is. I still put that in quotes because what you described tells me you are definitely a person who leans towards aesthetics, and by that I can see why some maps in MHRise look "rough" to you. The background of the video I just tweeted for you would be considered "rough": there's no dressing on it, the lighting angle is poor and makes it look low quality, etc. No "still" of the video I tweeted can be taken that would look good, and that's where your definition is. It's that video in motion that's impressive which encompasses more than just the final "image". I think you find screenshot worthy games to be "polished", and of course, that's in great contrast to the idea that games are mostly productions of motion, or a compilation if a very high rate of images controllable by the end user :P