Yes I agree that R&C would have to conceed to have more fps and Odyssey could do HD on 30fps. But that is only a small portion of the graphical IQ on any game.

I doubt it's 3x. PS4 isn't 10x more powerfull, its estimative is around 6x. Ps3 games were around 720p or 540p and that translated to 1080p and 900p for PS4. There is nothing that really suggest 10x power difference, ram and ram velocity isn't power. always the "great art style", I love when Nintendo fan pretend that Nintendo art style is so much better than anyone else because the do cartoon instead of trying realism. Still on the cartoon side RC look better. And sorry yo burst that bubble but Nintendo games certainly aren't evaluated as other. If they would evaluate the graphic portion as they do other games they would take a lot of Nintendo scores.

MK isn't Nintendo. And you said they were most, I just showed that at the time they tried to go photorealism on that time limitation.

Errrr Nintendo wanting 60 fps is relevant (althought it's possible to do photorealism with 60fps, but would need to give in on resolution or other assets). On low resolution I dunno what you are talking about because there were some sub 720p perhaps going close to 540-600p on X1, so it isn't unnaceptable to be lower than 1080, even more because a lot of switch games aren't 1080p.

HZD "grass" reacts to you, but if we are going to compare just points one does and the other don't as any type of measure that list will be infinite.

It doesn't matter, that just one example how they have different priorities.

You can doubt, but fact is that Switch has 8x more RAM memory than PS3, much more capable, newer and much more efficient GPU, and similar is for CPU also, at end Switch is around 3x stronger. I mean thats why we have some 1080p games on Switch they were 720p on PS3. Its not point only about resolution, 1080p games on PS4 have more details, better textures, better lightning, shadows, other effects...and better and more stable FPS compared to PS3 games. PS4 has 16x more RAM memory than PS3, it has around 8x stronger GPU just buy numbers (with difference in tech/architecture real time difference is easily bigger than 10x), similar goes for CPU, PS4 CPU is much more capable, newer and much more efficient for modern games than Cell in PS3, so at end, difrence is closer to 10x.

I dont think that people thinking that Nintendo art style is so much better than else than anyone else, but Nintendo games usualy have great art style. That's like your opinion that RC look better, thats very subjective, while its fact that Nintendo games play better beacuse 60 fps. I disagree that Nintendo games certainly aren't evaluated as other, just look Zelda BotW and Mario Odyssey, that's huge leap in evolution, point that on technical side are not like other current games, dont change nothing (I mean just look reviews for both games).

I didn't said that MK is Nintendo, my point is that even back than we had some more realistic games while Nintendo were making more cartonie games same like today. Again, nobody said that evry Nintendo game is cartoonish, but most of them are.

Even though option 1 was harsh, it was the closest to a proper response.

Nintendo games are beautiful in their own way, the Nintendo way.  While techincally Uncharted 4 looks better and more impressive, does BOTW or Odysee look "worse"?  Only from a technical point of view.  I love uncharted, but no one is going to say its a better game than BOTW, even with those visuals.

Having 8x more memory (which doesn't even translate to 8x more gaming ram) isn't the same as making the HW 3x better. The GPU can be better, but hardly 3x, as I said, we still don't have any evidence that it's 3x better. And no the CPU in PS4 is considered weaker than on PS3 not better. Go look at the release of PS4 how many people were disapointed that the jump was closer to 6x than 10x. And as much as we thinker the numbers the gap between Switch and PS4 wouldn't change... if Switch is 2x better than PS3 with PS4 being 6x better or Switch is 3x better and PS4 10x, the gap between then is still 3x.

So you want to say that they are behind in technical terms but are evaluated on the same ground? Are you serious?

Most of the games at the time were cartoorney... that is the point, there were very few Nintendo or 3rd party games that were realistic. When power started to be enough to really do photo realism that was when Nintendo stuck with cartoon and others moved on.

To me UC4 is better than BOTW, so there goes yours "no one", and yes it also look better. As I said to Miyamoto as well, even R&C look better and have more details than BOTW and Odyssey, they are games done on 1/3 or less of a HW and as such their graphical budget is less. And when we go for 30 vs 60 fps that is basically 6x difference on the graphical budget allowed. So the textures on Mario and Zelda are very bland.

You mean games like The Last Guardian?

8x more memory is just one point (for games is actualy 6x more RAM), fact is taht GPU is much stronger even if you look just through numbers (but comparing buy numbers tech/architecture with hole decade difference doesn't make any sense) and add to that difference in tech/architecture (PS3 GPU  tech/architecture is from 2004/2005. while Switch GPU  tech/architecture is from 2015.), and at end with all points difrence is around 3x. Thats not true, PS3 CPU is better than PS4 in just some operations, but offcourse that PS4 is much more capable, newer and much more efficient GPU for modern games than PS3 CPU from 10 years ago. I dont need to go back, we have specs in front of us. Switch is around 3x stronger than Switch and PS4 is around 3x stronger than Switch, with difference that PS4 and Switch both have new tech/architecture and support for all modern engines and APIs compared to PS3.

Of Course, just look previous 3D Zelda and previous 3D Mario, but they cant have exactly technical side when they have weaker hardware.

Thats wha I said, Nintendo sticked to cartoons graphics even when they had stronger hardware (GC for instance).

So you can't use the reviewers giving good scores to Nintendo as a way to say Nintendo games have great graphics or that graphics doesn't matter (because for PC, PS and Xbox they are sure to take out score on graphics) it is more like that reviewers give a free pass to these games and change the scope of evaluation.

Because these games are far better than what Nintendo is capable of.

Names, we need names.

Because the PS3 is ancient by now and Nintendo should be able to produce a better looking photorealistic game. Anyway Nintendo will make games which are visually pleasing, but wil rarely look really amazing cimparted to their fat more capable counterparts.