Pretty much no way it would be able to run it at 900P. It appears to me (and Digital Foundry) that it was running at a low resolution in the gameplay they saw. I would imagine 720P Docked and dynamic 720P undocked

Doom 2016 in my opinion is a graphics showcase but the engine itself and gameplay are nothing that hasn't been done before. So I suspect if wii u, ps3 and 360 were still viable formats the game could have been jointly developed on those. Visually of course they may have been downgraded even compared to Switch especially docked but we will never know. It's possible the 360 could have pulled off a 60fps version with much lower quality assets. So it would have looked inferior to Switch but played more like the ps4 version. It ran Doom 3 at a consistent 60 fps and as a later port they probably could have achieved slightly higher quality visuals than doom 3. It has that 256GB/s memory bandwidth in the 10MB of graphic memory that enables some blistering frame rates as long as you don't venture above 720p. 

People are not gonna buy this game, because the resolution is not higher on docked mode?? Hahahahahahahahah. Give me a break.

Thank you Bethesda!!! I am buying this game!!

You can't be serious. Doom 3 is a game from 2004, it's 12 years and two generations behind Doom 2016 graphically. 360's eDRAM is not a magic bullet, the system is still limited by a CPU + GPU from 2005, and less than 500MB of RAM available to games. The 360 couldn't dream of running Doom 2016 unless it was totally rebuilt similar to COD on Wii, and at that point it would be 60fps on Switch as well, making it a moot point.

It runs at 900p/30fps on PS4 so there's even less of a chance that the Switch will get the same content or mechanics as the PS4 version ... 

Could be indicative of a lazy port, but I think it's fine, all in all

The game looks really nice already and seems to run well, despite on weaker hardware

Just make sure the gameplay is good, Bethesda.

The reason people were so upset about half ass ports happening on the Wii U is because we were getting half ass ports from weaker consoles. Take Splinter Cell for example, had the multiplayer dropped from the Wii U version that was present in both the ps3 and the 360. The Switch however is getting ports from far stronger consoles that hold up well. Its a huge difference. Now if we were still getting PS3 ports and they were gimped than I'd be right there with you.

Doom proves that Panic Button are good developers. It went from, "OMG how is this even possible?" to "oh you guys are lame for not getting it to look and run even better!" 

How does that happen? Every hands on so far has been positive but people here are trying to spin this into a negative. This game looks great. It also ships with all of the dlc, another thing Wii U never got. 

There are some 360 games with amazing visuals for their time in the last years of development.

Your idiotic defence of Switch is un-necessary. I've already stated the game would have downgraded visuals mainly due to limited memory I would imagine. By downgrading the visual assets it will clearly be easier to get to 60fps. It's called optimising the game for the hardware. There is no part of the Switch hardware that has a 256GB/s memory pool like 360 and as for cpu performance the 360 is close to 20,000 mips (6 threads at 3.2ghz) which while the Arm A57's are much more capable cores there are only 4 processes at 1ghz which equates to about 13,000 mips. The PPC series also have an extended instruction set compared to Arm. Again the idea that somehow the Switch is hugely more powerful than 360 and PS3 is certainly false for portable Switch performance. Again there is evidence that the game will be running at 540p much of the time on portable which is close to ED resolution not even HD. Lets not get stupidly hyped up and unrealistic about Switch performance. 

User was moderated for this post

-Super_Boom

There is really no need for personal attacks.

There are indeed 360 games that look amazing for their time, I would even contend that some of them still look excellent today. But even when portable, the Switch is more capable hardware; not enormously so, I never claimed that, but enough to make a significant difference. Numbers alone don't tell the whole story; new features and improved efficiency allow the Switch to punch above what the raw figures would suggest; delta colour compression for example grants considerable improvement in bandwidth efficiency versus older hardware. Also, eDRAM only gets 360 so far; it's one of many parts that make up the hardware, and it won't help if you're bottlenecked somewhere else.

There were games on Xbox 360 that ran at 540p, but nothing on the system ever approached the technological level of Doom 2016, and the Switch version appears to retain most of the PS4/Xbone tier rendering tech, such as temporal supersampling, PBR, GPU accelerated particles, etc.

Sure, if you cut down Doom until it looked like a game from 2004 you could run it on Xbox 360 at 60fps, but the team behind the Switch port clearly have different priorities and have set out to retain the general look and most of the technology of the full fat version. You couldn't do that on Xbox 360, but you can on Switch.