lol please

Sure the yare not lying, but the Switch is strong enough to play a port of a 5 year old game. A game that runs natively at 4k on PS4 (a pretty obvious sign of the lack of  capability needed for the game). And that is all. When they start showing off stuff like Fallout 4 then maybe we can look past taking their words at face value. 

And we have no idea what Todd Howard was impressed by anyway. Maybe it was just that the Switch could work in both dock and undocked modes.  

And how often do From Software actually release a game without technical issues? Not very often at all.  'Performance they are happy with' is meaningless in this regard. Current gen or not, DS3 is not without frame rate or even frame pacing issues. and they have had those issues for the entire series more or less. 

i am totally with you that JAN is where we can truly have these sort of conversations. But as it stands, Skyrim and the talk of Dark Souls 3 is not the strong evidence you make it out to be. on the contrary, they do nothing to support a strong Switch or even deny the weaker specs offered by Digital Foundry.

After seeing some OpenGL vs Vulkan comparisons and considering that Switch supports Vulkan and that Vulkan is great for ARM mobile chips like Tegra X1, I think we can be confident to say that Switch, even undocked, will be fairly better than Wii U. To be fair, they are comparing Vulkan to OpenGL|ES in the videos below but I think that the point stands.

Switch is strong enough to play the remastered port of Skyrim, with higher quality assets that systems with the specs being speculated for the Switch could not run.

Switch isn't the first portable device to output to TV, and it's not the first to be powerful enough to run last gen software, so that being the reason it was "the most impressing demo he'd ever seen" isn't likely. His problem with Nintendo was power. He was explicit.

Think about what you're saying. DS3 has technical issues on current gen hardware. It should be damn near impossible to get the game running even equally as porely on the Switch given the rumored specs. If running at 20-30 fps is what they consider acceptable on PS4/XBO, they aren't going to suddenly lower that to 10-20fps. It's going to remain the same. Of course DS3 has technical issues. That doesn't mean that From Soft are tech illiterate idiots that can't tell when a port is running up to their own standards.

I never said they deny the specs offered by DF, I said there's obviously more to this. Again, DF only offered clock speeds, which doesn't offer the full picture, and what we know from the full picture from From and Bethesda suggests that the way people are interpreting those numbers isn't in line with where the Switch actually is.

Link to official confirmation that not only is Skyrim confirmed, but the special edition of it.

Well it is supposed to be their next gen system, but by how much is the question

I think at this point, they can't actually port their games but rather remake them just for the switch if they want it on the Switch.

The docked mode isn't the main issue although granted its still not that great. The portable mode is the main issue because every game must be made to run in portable mode which is rumored to be at 157 or so Gflops according to neogaf. I doubt devs will be able to make a game exclusively for the docked mode since the main gimmick is to be able to play it anywhere. So devs will be looking at the 157 or so Gflops in performance first and then enhancing it after rather than looking at the docked mode first since the bottleneck will be the portable mode.

But either ways, as Pachter said in his recent ep, publishers make about $36 or so with each retail copy sold. If the Switch is powerful enough to handle ports, the publishers can spend about 5 million (in his example) to port the games. (36 x 500,000 sales = 18 million = profit) But if they have to make the games from ground up due to it not being powerful enough, they would have to spend 40 million in his example which wouldn't be worth it for them. ($36 x 1 million sales = 36 million = no profit since it costed 40 million to develop for the Switch). And that excludes marketing and etc.

So idk if there will be very many third party games at all from the western front. I mean, did we hear any rumors about any modern ports yet apart from like not very intensive games such as Just Dance?

After seeing some OpenGL vs Vulkan comparisons and considering that Switch supports Vulkan and that Vulkan is great for ARM mobile chips like Tegra X1, I think we can be confident to say that Switch, even undocked, will be fairly better than Wii U. To be fair, they are comparing Vulkan to OpenGL|ES in the videos below but I think that the point stands.

Is actually hard to know exactly how much powerful it is going only by he numbers we have, but what I understand from what I read is that Switch will slightly outperform WiiU when undocked and be around x3 times the power of WiiU when docked, but more info is still required since we don't really know for exemple how customized the Nvidia chip is or how much Ram the OS will use.