Easy to port games with 3x less power than the XBO? Doesn't sound likely.

I mean, the "let down" specs has is at better than Wii U when in portable mode, so it should definitely be stronger than 360.

I'm not saying there won't be big compromises. That's why I referenced Tomb Raider 2 on 360. It preserves the original game in its entirety in gameplay, scope and cinematics. It just doesn't look at good. Maybe the "secret sauce" is that Nintendo made a system that it's extremely easy to do that to for just about any current gen game.

To aide with that further might be subnative resolutions in handheld mode. We know that the difference between portable mode and console mode is a resolution jump and not much else, meaning the game will be pretty much identical in all other respects between the two modes. So 720p in portable mode and 1080p in console mode.

Let's use RoTR again. Square was able to get it to run on 360 hardware at 720p looking the way it does. Most people speculate that Switch will be more powerful than that in portable mode. What if, instead of running at 720p in portable mode, the same game targeted 540p in portable mode? Obviously on a big screen that would be absurd (I wouldn't care but I digress), but for such a small screen it would be much more acceptable, and the game would be able to use all those resources to make the game look graphically closer to the XBO version, just with a serious drop in resolution rather than in assets.

Then, when docked, you take that version and boost it up to 720p instead of 1080p. Outside of clarity, a game will look better when targeting lower resolutions. That might be the strategy here. PS4 games target 1080p, XBO games target 900p, and Switch games target 720p when docked/540p when undocked.

The only thing Skyrim special Edition has in common with the Skyrym from 5 years ago is the name... if you look a little deeper you will see is a remaster that includes all graphical effects and techniques of this generation, five years ago it barely run on the ps360, sub 20 f`ps, 90% of the efets turn off, the ps360 where too weak to run the game, now we are talking a game graphically redesign to be a moder game, on ps4 Xone it barelly runs at 30 fps, so please stop repeating the same mantra "skyrim is a 5 year old game" it only has the same name, graphically it is a 2016 new game.

I don't think that's fair. I've played Skyrim on pc, ps3, 360 and now ps4. The special edition on ps4 pretty much looks like the original version with a few graphic tweaks. You now get all the DLC included in the pack and of course it runs at higer resolution but its pretty much the same game. While the ps3 struggled especially with the DLC loaded the 360 always performed very well. The Switch is going to have no problem running this game either portable or docked going by those spec figures and I'm hoping for a VR version. For the ps4 version they don't seem to have made much effort. The game simply doesn't compare to Fallout 4 with regard the engine sophistication. Remember the Switch has 4GB of memory, a gpu with a great feature set and 4 Arm 64 bit cpu's which will easily punch above 360 performance. The 'mod' feature is the issue I don't expect to see that on Switch.

I think if you've got a very powerful PC Skyrim special edition will scale up much higher than the old game but for the xbone and ps4 its not been massively improved perhaps because of their limited cpu performance and skyrim being possibly a cpu locked game.

Well i have the game on PC, and Xbone and it looks too much better than the original game.

I honestly don't think it does with regard the xbone at least. It's frankly amazing what was achieved on xbox 360. The main advantage of the xbox one version seems to be load times. I'm not saying there aren't subtle improvements but the general look and detail difference is minimal. They certainly don't look a generation apart. My point is the Switch won't really have a problem looking competitive because they haven't made much effort on ps4 or xbone and if the Switch gets a VR version frankly I'd much rather play it on Switch.

I don't think it will have good 3rd party support as a home console by normal measures. It will get games, but mostly older game ports. Think Shield TV games, which NVidia has already got many developers to support. NVidia seems to have a big part in the development of Shield and it's tools - I would bet on getting a lot of the same games on the Switch, in other words "yawn".