They won't even bother looking into it, that's a shame but kinda predictable.

Switch has a GPU with 384GFlops in docked mode and 152GFlops in portable compared to XB1 with 1.3TFlops of performance which is a huge difference and it struggles to run even at 900p on XB1. Switch in portable mode is weaker than a PS3. I don't think this game will run on a PS3 and even a more modern architecture wouldn't make it more powerful. Also the PS3 has an incredibly powerful CPU which the Switch doesn't have. I don't think this game will run at 720p on Switch even in docked mode which is what they will want to have atleast for a game releasing now.

I'm sure the power gap is even bigger than GC-PS2 but Capcom still ported Resident Evil 4 even when it ran and looked like crap.

The power difference is way more, its like a generational difference between XB1 and Switch. The PS2 had a 6.2GFlop GPU and GC had a 9.4GFlop GPU. So the GC was 50% more powerful and still RE4 performed way better. XB1 has 1100% more powerful GPU than Switch in portable mode and 350% in docked mode. That's huge enough but because Switch games ahve to run in portable mode the difference is huge. As I said its more comparable to PS3 than XB1 and although it has a more modern architecture and supports UE4 the Switch isn't getting many PS4 and XB1 games. The one that is announced Skyrim that got people all hyped about it is also on PS3 and Xbox 360 which people forget everytime they say that as a sign of good third party support. I would consider it getting good support from Bethesda if it gets Fallout 4 as that would indicate that Switch is capable of running modern games.

Sure, that's more work for them. I'm sure it could run...it would probably look like shit but it would run. However, I expect different turnouts for Kingdom Hearts 3 and Final Fantasy VII R as they both use unreal 4 just as Dragon Quest XI is using Unreal 4. FFXV ran on an engine that would need to be adapted to switch, being undnerpowered and all. I never said power didn't matter, but in essense it really doesn't depending on what you're trying to accomplish. Case and point DS, Wii, GB, GBC, NES, 3DS. And of course there are times where not being powerful does hurt really bad i.e. Wii U, but Gamecube was on par in terms of graphical capability, N64 was more powerful, and what happened to those? It takes marketing, a solid idea, power, games, and luck to be a successful console. Any mix of those.

Why say "it wouldn't run" when you really mean "I haven't checked if it could run or not". It's OK we're used to no 3rd party support :S

With Switch' specs?

Please God no.

Just make a new game for switch entirely. It's just not worth it.

Power does matter when it comes to running games optimally and running them at all. Wii would have sold way better if it was comparable in power to PS3 and Xbox 360 at the price it was at as then it would have had the amazing multiplatform games as well. The PS3 still sold well in 2016 but Wii didn't and that was because its hardware got outdated very quickly. So in terms of consoles power does matter to be able to support third party games.

Also the Wii U was powerful? Hahaha. If it was actually powerful for the time it came out i would have had better support and better sales.

I um...didn't say the Wii U was powerful...maybe read next time?

Of course power matters when running games optimally, where did I say it didn't? All I said was, it's not always the determining factor in any console race. 

Yes lol what the fuck I missed the not part. Anyways I think small power difference doesn't matter but when the power difference is so huge that the weaker console can't run the games that the stronger console gets then it does effect sales. So its the games that really matter but its power that decides what games the system gets.

As for N64 and GC they had other hardware issues such as the format used to distribute games and both had formats that were not large enough to store many games.