Technically it is also the best version because it can be taken with you and played anywhere 

Technically it is also the best version because it can be taken with you and played anywhere 

A reviewer can decide for himself if he wants to take the portability into account.

The situation is comparable to VR. Some games play gorgeous in VR. Others match not that well and have to be changed or restriceted to work with the platform. Same with mobile touchscreen-devices. See, a round-based RPG works pretty well on that, because it allows to access menus which are mostly used for these games. A Jump&Run straight ported works horrible, because you miss the precise input of buttons. And Mario Run is a different game than usual Marios, tailored to the platform.

If Mario Odyssey would be straight ported to phones, it would play horrible and should rightfully be scored lower than the Switch-version. An examples from my experience: I really like Jagged Alliance. It is a great game. The game was later ported to 3DS, but the controls on PC relying on the mouse work horrible on the 3DS. So the 3DS.version should be scored lower.

the platform per see shouldn't affect the score at all.

Me? Nope, I do wish the game do well. I'm just curious on if we will consider the sales, good or bad are on the merit of the game and userbase and not based on excuses.

It goes without saying that someone who has bought the switch did so because the hybrid form factor appealed to them.
A games scores shouldn't be artificially inflated because of the hardware it runs on.

The game should be judged on it's own merits, not the platforms merits.
Which is why if the Switch version matches/exceeds the other platforms scores, then the reviewers are obviously biased... As technically, the Switch version is the worst version of the game due to lower quality assets, performance and resolution.

Technically it is also the best version because it can be taken with you and played anywhere 

A reviewer can decide for himself if he wants to take the portability into account.

The situation is comparable to VR. Some games play gorgeous in VR. Others match not that well and have to be changed or restriceted to work with the platform. Same with mobile touchscreen-devices. See, a round-based RPG works pretty well on that, because it allows to access menus which are mostly used for these games. A Jump&Run straight ported works horrible, because you miss the precise input of buttons. And Mario Run is a different game than usual Marios, tailored to the platform.

If Mario Odyssey would be straight ported to phones, it would play horrible and should rightfully be scored lower than the Switch-version. An examples from my experience: I really like Jagged Alliance. It is a great game. The game was later ported to 3DS, but the controls on PC relying on the mouse work horrible on the 3DS. So the 3DS.version should be scored lower.

False.
The PC can be portable on top of having superior visuals, controls and performance.

Indeed they can. However, artificially inflating scores because the hardware is portable is biased in my eyes.
Review the game for the games merits, not the hardware it operates on.

The difference with your examples is that... The Home Consoles don't have compromised controls in their comparison which directly influences gameplay, mobile devices do.

VR is also an entirely different kettle of fish and requires a much different approach to game development in general.

The Xbox One version also outscores the Playstation 4 version, despite the Playstation 4 version being technically superior in many aspects and that is also silly in my eyes.

Technically it is also the best version because it can be taken with you and played anywhere 

A reviewer can decide for himself if he wants to take the portability into account.

The situation is comparable to VR. Some games play gorgeous in VR. Others match not that well and have to be changed or restriceted to work with the platform. Same with mobile touchscreen-devices. See, a round-based RPG works pretty well on that, because it allows to access menus which are mostly used for these games. A Jump&Run straight ported works horrible, because you miss the precise input of buttons. And Mario Run is a different game than usual Marios, tailored to the platform.

If Mario Odyssey would be straight ported to phones, it would play horrible and should rightfully be scored lower than the Switch-version. An examples from my experience: I really like Jagged Alliance. It is a great game. The game was later ported to 3DS, but the controls on PC relying on the mouse work horrible on the 3DS. So the 3DS.version should be scored lower.

Well, it does. The same game can be rated differently depending on platform. It is about feels. A game can play to the strengths of a platform and feel much better than on another where it doesn't match that well. For instance different games can work differently on VR than on console/PC. For instance may a fast game be working bad on VR, but a slower game might be impressive.

I think being a late port impacts the sales more than scores or graphics or whatever. Given, some late ports on Switch did better than on their earlier platforms. But not all. I personally think Skyrim might resonate better with Switch-userbase than Doom. So let's see, the two games have on PS4 (as point of reference): 2.7M for Skyrim and 2.2M for Doom. So let's say 20% for Doom and 40% for Skyrim would put my hopeful expectations on Switch at a little above 1M for Skyrim and at 450K for Doom. Maybe my expectations are too high, maybe too low, I don't really know, but I'm pretty sure Skyrim does better relatively.

Well, it does. The same game can be rated differently depending on platform. It is about feels. A game can play to the strengths of a platform and feel much better than on another where it doesn't match that well. For instance different games can work differently on VR than on console/PC. For instance may a fast game be working bad on VR, but a slower game might be impressive.

I think being a late port impacts the sales more than scores or graphics or whatever. Given, some late ports on Switch did better than on their earlier platforms. But not all. I personally think Skyrim might resonate better with Switch-userbase than Doom. So let's see, the two games have on PS4 (as point of reference): 2.7M for Skyrim and 2.2M for Doom. So let's say 20% for Doom and 40% for Skyrim would put my hopeful expectations on Switch at a little above 1M for Skyrim and at 450K for Doom. Maybe my expectations are too high, maybe too low, I don't really know, but I'm pretty sure Skyrim does better relatively.

Technically it is also the best version because it can be taken with you and played anywhere 

False.
The PC can be portable on top of having superior visuals, controls and performance.

Indeed they can. However, artificially inflating scores because the hardware is portable is biased in my eyes.
Review the game for the games merits, not the hardware it operates on.

The difference with your examples is that... The Home Consoles don't have compromised controls in their comparison which directly influences gameplay, mobile devices do.

VR is also an entirely different kettle of fish and requires a much different approach to game development in general.

The Xbox One version also outscores the Playstation 4 version, despite the Playstation 4 version being technically superior in many aspects and that is also silly in my eyes.

1. A PC for >$1000 that has a battery rate of 3 hours, is usually huge, and weighs several pounds

2. A hybrid for $300 which has some compromises, but weighs a pound and is 6.3 inches

Compromises either way, but it's clear which one is more portable

That doesn't hurt anything, the buttom layout is the same, you just gotta get used to it. Its also bettert to play Breath of The Wild (and most Switch games) with the pro controller, that doesn't mean the joycons hurt their portable aspect.