Nintendo cares about what Nintendo thinks? uh...duh?

What are you referring to?

From your Opening and reasoning with not being worried to Switch's specs. You explained by referring to the game Destiny as being lukewarm in its reception. You are wrong about it being a next-gen title. The game itself is a new IP. Released to PS3, 360, PS4, and the Xb1. 

I'm not sure why you used this game to support your view for Switch's capabilities. 

I recall Destiny being referred to as something to the effect of being "the first true next-gen title" a few years ago. There was skepticism on whether Destiny was "true next-gen" or not: http://www.gamespot.com/articles/bungie-destiny-not-dumbed-down-for-current-gen/1100-6415956/ , http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2014/09/12/why-destiny-really-is-next-gen/#46e83b3d435f

I didn't.

I don't think anyone has doubts that Nintendo games coming to the Switch will be fine even with weak hardware. Hell, they could have just not made the Wii U and kept supporting the Wii and most Nintendo fans probably wouldn't have cared.

But, a lack of power is going to kill any hopes of decent third party support.

That's fine with me KLAMarin. I'm not that worried about the Switch and I'll likely be getting one. Destiny is a cross generation game, they scaled back, scaled up, and everyone plays the same game as to the limits of the weakest hardware. 

Graphically we know the Switch is a lot weaker but both memory size and cpu performance is roughly half that of the original ps4. Something like 19,000 mips vs 38,000 mips and much of the greater memory size and some of the cpu performance will be used to drive the greater graphic detail and higher resolution. Effectively the ps4 is only perhaps 60-70% more powerful with regard gameplay mechanics. So the Switch may be capable of running slightly cut down versions with a lot worse graphics. I don't think it will get those games anyway but the Switch still has an abundance of memory all things considered.

It certainly could get some new game releases. Much of the problem with the 360 and PS3 was fitting games into their small memory. That issue has been eliminated with Switch. It's got 8x their memory. It's the one area which is a huge upgrade.

I see the bold posted a lot on this site, but mainly in the Nintendo section, which is unsurprising. This notion that "graphics don't matter" is simply wrong on a technical level, a game design level and a factual level. Games are graphics and graphics are games by design. Literally games are made from computer generated graphics, which allows for us to play them and have game play mechanics.

Just because some of you like to to live in this narrow minded and unrealistic world where graphics are unimportant to gaming does not change what the facts are. You mean detail and animation does not matter as far as how good the game looks. If that is the case then why don't you play on the Atari? So you would be fine if the Switch had games that were on the level of the NES graphically?

Tell me what made Ocarina of Time better than the 2D Zelda games or Resident Evil 4 considered the best in the series (though I believe it ruined the series, which lead to RE5 to begin with, which makes your comment ironic)? Both games had superior graphics that allowed for the game play mechanics that they were praised for. In closing, you do not have a game without graphics and certainly no game play lol.

Why is it wrong to have great looking games? They are plenty of games that look great and have great game play. They just are not on Nintendo's platforms. Me personally I like to spend my money on the best. Sure you could get around in a low end car, but if you could afford a better more powerful car you would buy one, because it is better.

The bolded is what people should really be excited for. All this talk about third parties and I'm here excited that we won't have as many (hopefully none) of the droughts that Wii U had. If anyone can back up a console without third party support, it's Nintendo. They sure as heck have the exclusive franchises to do that. Fingers crossed.

I'm not saying graphics don't matter, I'm just saying great graphics don't always guarantee a great game.

I wouldn't mind playing on the Atari if a game on it was good. I'm not crazy about graphics but I am a huge fan of good art styles and Atari games aren't well-known for their art styles.

Graphics are certainly important but great graphics are not going to rescue a game from bad gameplay.

There is nothing wrong with great-looking games. I'm not sure where you got that idea from.