How many times have we seen devs compromise this gen, occasionally reducing resolution to sub-HD levels, and often being satisfied being within the ballpark of 30 fps. Yet people here are saying we have all the power necessary.

We certainly have more than enough power than necessary for 2D titles. Linear 3D titles need more power to take advantage of high res displays, open world titles need far more power to be fully realized without fps/draw distance compromises (not to mention resolution again), and VR needs a metric fuckton more power.

Thats really low balling it.... by that kinda reasoning then theer is no need for better hardware ever....

you make it sound like how a game looks or performs has absolutely nothing to do with a game being being or even playing better.

better hardware means higher resolutions, the prospect of 60fps gaming, better draw distances, more on scren objects (enemies/effects) better animations, better in game models and assets......etc. Eevrything I just mentioned add to a game all round being better.

here is a simple way to settle this. If you hav a game and a 1080p tv. And the exact same game is on two different consoles. Both consoles cost the exact same amount of money. And the only difference being that on one console you get higher rez, better sound quality, better AA in the game, better game geometry, HDR, 60fps...etc. 

Which of those two console will you buy? the one that allows you play the exact same game but with it looking better and performing better? or the one that doesn't? Remember, they both cost the exact same amount of money.

More power is good in the objective sense, but it's also what the developers do with it that also matters.

The point I'm trying to make is that better hardware = fewer limitations = more options = more potential for a good game. Potential isn't always fulfilled, so more power doesn't necesarily mean a better game. I don't think I've ever heard anyone make such a claim anyway, so in that sense, the title is weird. But I don't really see a point in discussing further. Power is neither a requirement nor a guarantee for good games, but more power is better.

Obviously in most cases, power is irrelevant to the quality of a game. It kind of seems that there's very few games that actually take advantage of the current generation's processing power for gameplay purposes. That said, there's still always going to be games that do take advantage of the extra processing power.

In that totally fair scenario you'd pick the best performance. I'm no negating that. But the world isn't fair

Just for reference. I didn't purchase Twilight Princess HD because I already played the Wii version. Just like I'm not going to purchase Mario Kart 8 Deluxe after already playing the original on the WiiU. These remasters are basicly the same games (even though MK8 port improves its battle mode), only change is graphics with some tweaks in gameplay.

I would prefer if companies focused on creating depth, AI, customization, details, lore, polished gameplay mechanics, choices, smooth gameplay, etc. over pretty visuals.
But pretty visuals/ presentation are what sells games, (and popular multiplayer).
If someone were to create a huge bugdet game that looks like an early PS3 game, but had more depth, customization, destruction, best physics, best AI, insane attention to detail, and insane interactivity, depth of lore, customization, etc. (basically most feature full game ever) it would get torn apart for looking like crap, and most people would ignore it.

With more power, Breath of the Wild may not get better gameplay, but it could run in full 1080p at a locked 60fps.

Which would indeed make the game even better than it [reportedly] is.

Minecraft didn't have that issue.

Not necessarily, but more power can result in a game with better framerate and such.