The game does look great, it makes me excited to see what Nintendo themselves can come up with once they reach the Switch's true potential.

If we talk about the X-com reboot it sits between X-com EU/EW and X-com 2. The amount of timed missons in X-com 2 destroys the game in my opinion since it kind of counteracts thoughtful soldier placement and the actual strategy part of the game.

Laser Squad and X-com of the 90ies is a different thing, partly because you could use scorched earth tactics.

You know enough about technology to know this is not an apples to apples comparison. That a game like Soul Caliber 2 might have ran at 720p on Xbox means very little when it looked like this and the overall image quality was measurably worse due to other features (texture filtering, anti-aliasing, etc.) 

The pixel density of 600p on a six inch screen is much greater than 900p on say the 42" 4k television I play on, and it shows when playing the game. You notice the flaws much less when playing on a handheld two feet away from your eyes versus a television eight feet away.

We're talking 192.42 PPI vs. 43.71 PPI (in my case), and the latter upscales much worse than the previous. I'd take the first any day of the week. 

And for a more apples to apples comparison, the PS VITA ran its games at 540p, and the PS3, XB360, and Wii U had many sub-HD titles going well below 600p and were intended to be played on large screens. Sure, the Switch in handheld mode is more powerful than these platforms in the ways that matter, but not a generation leap over them, just as XBO has some 720p titles, and PS4/XBO have many 900p/sub-900p titles it makes sense that ambitious titles on the Switch will go under 720p in handheld mode if they are trying to push the platform in console mode, real-world performance doesn't always scale linearly and an optimization on console mode might not be so optimized in handheld mode. 

To be fair, Digital Foundry praise pretty much every platform exclusive.

Meh, it's a turn based game where there's lot's of close ups with the camera and doesn't feature dense geometry ... 

Aliasing and framerate drops aren't much of an issue ... 

It could be worse: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk8GnaaRkT4
Ark is not even able to hit 720p30 on the "powerful" consoles.

That's cause UE4 sucks ...  

At least this game is using an optimized engine like Snowdrop ... 

Actually probably cause the devs aren't technical titans.  UE4 is exceptionally flexible, you just need to know what you are doing.

UE4 has an easy content production pipeline (along with documentation) and can produce good graphics but in many cases exhibit subpar performance especially for AMD GPUs which home consoles use ... 

ARK would've been better served if it were developed with Snowdrop, Frostbite 3 or id Tech 6 and performance would be 10x better (exaggerating of course) ... 

Devs may not be technical leads in the industry but anybody who uses UE4 or Unity is asking for bad performance on home consoles ... 

UE4 is a trash engine and Epic Games have outlived their usefulness (GoW is their only relevant franchise on consoles and Microsoft now has the rights to the IP) so I hope they go out of business or get out of high end graphics and soon thereafter japanese AAA devs will shop around for another engine (presumably either Snowdrop or Frostbite but hopefully EA and Ubisoft will improve japanese documentation for those engines to be more appealing) for the betterment of technical excellence ... 

Days Gone, Hellblade, Kingdom Hearts 3, Final Fantasy 7 Remake, Fortnite are all just going to have to suck on consoles then...

Odd that a Sony studio would pick UE4 over one of their in house engines...