I'd say 3D World is almost a better looking game then Odyssey

Nah. 20FPS is a dogs breakfast. No thanks. You do have allot of panning of the map, 20fps would look juddery. 30fps is the minimum, 60fps would be ideal.

You also don't need allot of subpixel geometry or draw distance to take advantage of a higher resolution, it's been 20~ years where I have been gaming on PC at a higher resolution than this game, games weren't always as complex and well presented as Battle Kingdom.

Keen to see what Ubisoft does with the Snowdrop engine going forward on Switch, if this game is any representation of what to expect, then expect some good things.

This console generation could be a "Battle of the game engines".
Frostbite vs Snowdrop vs iD Tech 6 vs Unreal Engine 4 vs CryEngine 5 vs Unity vs Source2. So great not having 99.999% of games using Unreal Engine 3.

20FPS is sufficient for turn based games, it's perfectly playable with that amount of information since you only need to do the bare minimum to represent animations ... 

@Bold That may be so but I said, "best use case for higher resolution is in place of subpixel geometry and larger draw distance" so I assume the engineers at Ubisoft know what they're doing when they did a cost vs benefit analysis on the frametime impact with higher resolution and I think they've made the best possible technical decisions regarding Battle Kingdom ... (now personally speaking I would've wanted this game with more prettier graphics at the cost of running at 20FPS) 

With that being said Snowdrop is impressive but I still think Ubisoft's main engine is still going to be AnvilNEXT since D3D12 will allow them to make more aggressive improvements to the engine architecture all around ... 

I think CryEngine, Unity and Source 2 have already lost in the race of high performance/high end graphics before this generation even began ... 

Crytek can't keep up in engine technology development anymore since their recent financial struggles ...

Unity obviously has no desire to target AAA games since the developers behind the engine utterly refuse to raise the baseline when they target for highest possible portability so that comes with severe technical trade-offs ...

Valve hasn't kept up either with Source 2 and in fact I think they've fallen behind the most out of the bunch since they aren't making AAA games anymore and they have the least amount of employees too. (Heck, the only reason why I think they're even hiring technical expertise at all is to maintain their current games.) Have Valve even made the transition to physically based rendering with their engine ?! It's a shame on Valve to leave the AAA game industry for digital content distribution. It says a lot that we're currently more impressed with Ubisoft's offerings rather than Valve's LOL ... 

Valve has not released Source 2 yet.
The only game that currently runs on Source 2 is DOTA 2, which was ported to Source 2.
Valve is currently in the process of porting CS:GO to Source 2, so we may get to see some of the new features, but it will still be a port.

Valve have stated that they are currently developing three VR titles, so hopefully we can see the full power of Source 2 if they ever come out.

Super Mario 3D World ALMOST gets to this level at times, but falls short because of the system it's on and some lack of polish. I almost want to say that 3D world is better because this game's camera is fixed very strictly and it's draw distance is god awful.

It's kinda surreal for a Rabbids game of all things to be a graphical showcase. Imagine if you told someone last year this would happen.

3D World also has a pretty restrictive camera and short draw distance. 

Still, Kingdom Battle comfortably exceeds 3D World graphically. I mean let's compare...

900p is a more than worthwhile tradeoff for visuals this lush. The lighting in particular is gorgeous. Quality of pixels > quantity of pixels, I say.

20FPS is sufficient for turn based games, it's perfectly playable with that amount of information since you only need to do the bare minimum to represent animations ... 

@Bold That may be so but I said, "best use case for higher resolution is in place of subpixel geometry and larger draw distance" so I assume the engineers at Ubisoft know what they're doing when they did a cost vs benefit analysis on the frametime impact with higher resolution and I think they've made the best possible technical decisions regarding Battle Kingdom ... (now personally speaking I would've wanted this game with more prettier graphics at the cost of running at 20FPS)

With that being said Snowdrop is impressive but I still think Ubisoft's main engine is still going to be AnvilNEXT since D3D12 will allow them to make more aggressive improvements to the engine architecture all around ... 

Valve hasn't kept up either with Source 2 and in fact I think they've fallen behind the most out of the bunch since they aren't making AAA games anymore and they have the least amount of employees too. (Heck, the only reason why I think they're even hiring technical expertise at all is to maintain their current games.) Have Valve even made the transition to physically based rendering with their engine ?! It's a shame on Valve to leave the AAA game industry for digital content distribution. It says a lot that we're currently more impressed with Ubisoft's offerings rather than Valve's LOL ...

Disagree.
I had my fill of 20fps games during the Nintendo 64 era. You will not ever make me go back. ;)
But this isn't a 20fps game anyway, so the point is moot.

And for a more apples to apples comparison, the PS VITA ran its games at 540p,