Your general sentiment is correct. The Tegra X1 is slightly more modern than the PS4 and Xbox One's GPU, which means that in terms of features these GPUs are much closer to each other than say the Switch is to PS3/Xbox 360. On the other hand in terms of raw computational performance Switch is closer to Xbox 360 and PS3 (about on par with those two in handheld mode, and about 1.8X-2X faster in docked mode). This means that most modern engines will support Switch, but ultimately the games that can be ported on it will depend on whether they are computationally intensive (many Western AAA titles are, so those will most likely not run well and not really be practical to port) or not (there are still quite a large number of games, particularly from Japan that are not).

Also, the X2 is not really that much better than the X1. The biggest improvement on the X2 is memory bandwidth, which has been doubled. In addition, X2 achieves a maximum of 750 GFLOPS in single precision mode (the X1 could do a maximum of 512). Now Nintendo, most likely in a bid to keep up with the system's thermals, down clocked the GPU so the Switch's actual performance in docked mode is about 1.3X less (about 393 GFLOPS). If we reduce the speed of the X2's GPU by the same amount, then we get about 576 GLOPS. While that should provide some boost to certain games, it would still not be nearly large enough for computationally intensive games that struggle to run on the base Xbox One and/or PS4 to come over. In addition, the X2's GPU microarchitecture is based on Pascal which is more of a refinement to the Maxwell based GPU found on the X1. The jump from an X1 to an X2 is just slightly more than the jump from the 3DS to New 3DS, but it would not make more on-par with PS4 and Xbox One with regards to computational performance.

The reality is that the Switch's emphasis on portability meant that they had to with hardware found in mobile tablets (these run at around 4-10 watts), and there are very few options available at the time the Switch was being internally developed or even now that would allow for the creation of a $300 handheld that would be on-par with PS4 and Xbox One. 

I totally agree with Witcher 3 and I would lean towards agreeing with you MHW (though I am still uncertain about that; because the game is clearly large and so Switch might not be able to run it, but on the other hand it is running on a last-gen engine though of course the engine is not everything when it comes to making a game run on a certain platform). But Shadow of Mordor and Tomb Raider (both the 2013 game and Rise of the Tomb Raider) run on Xbox 360 and/or PS3, so these should be more than doable on Switch. In fact, Tomb Raider 2013 was ported by Nvidia (on-behalf of Square Enix) to the Nvidia Shield and based on my experience with it, it runs quite well.

Valve still makes games...unfortunately it is all just DOTA 2 related stuff.

Okay now back on topic, I still think games by the aforementioned companies (even ports of cross-gen games or enhanced ports of last gen titles) would be good addition to the Switch and would be less risky for the devs. Any quality game, be it somewhat older or new, would be a great addition to the Switch and it will move more people to purchase the system. I believe it would be disingenuous to dismiss all of those studios/publishers. For me the Switch has become my favourite console, as a portable gamer, a decently powerful handheld platform with Nintendo's latest games at a steady pace along with a mix of their older emulated games (through VC), ports/remakes of some of their older games, a few new multiples games, some ports of older cross-gen multiplat games, and some quality Japanese third-party/second-party exclusives was really the dream device until the Switch made it a reality. Hence, I would like as many quality games from as many of these third-party studios as possible. I really do hope Nintendo engages with them and convinces them to bring some of their fun and quality projects to the Switch. 

Yeah but so are Nintendos. Every heard about those "Amiibos" ?

Want special armour in Zelda BOTW ? Please buy dozens of amiibos. Scan those amiibos and roll the dice what gear you get. Oh you didnt got what you need? No problem, you can roll the dice again in 24 hours? Dont want to wait 24 hours? Well, buy just buy another Amiibo ;)

Want a companion? Just buy the Wolf Link Amiibo. Want to train the wolf link amiibo? Just buy Twilight Princess HD ;)

Vavle still makes games, currently 3 AAA game sin development for the HTC Vive: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-02-10-valve-is-making-three-fully-fledged-vr-games

Blizzard also has Diablo 3 on consoles btw.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-02-10-valve-is-making-three-fully-fledged-vr-games

Imagine if half-life 3 finally came, and it was VR Exclusive. The meltdowns that would cause...

Now imagine if Half-Life 3, Left 4 Dead 3 and Portal 3 were those three games in development, all exclusive to VR, that's not something one can remain sane after thinking about.

The X2 does have the same performance as the x1 with just 50% of the wattage, thats the advantage. You could easily have a switch with current docked performance portable (for 720p games) and ~750 gflops in docked mode (900-1200p). While still beeing behind the xbox one (1150 Gflops), porting would for sure be way easier then it is currently.

lol...I was just thinking the same thing. If they announce any or all of that and they end up being full fledge games, I would run to my local Best Buy to get the HTC VIVE (although I certainly wouldn't mind a PSVR release since I already have that, though based on Newell's comments about the hardware and software coupling from the link habam kindly posted, I think it would be Vive exclusive sort of thing).

Its actually pretty possible if you ask me.

Why shouldnt they use their big IPs to give their Vive a needed boost. 

Half Life 3, Portal 3 and Left 4 Dead 3 all as VR exclusives and completly build from ground up for vr (so playing them without vr wouldnt even be possible) is my bet.

Especially with half life, valve always tried to do something "new". VR is definitly "new" enough. I can see a big meltdown on the announcement (one reason I think valve will announce this games very, very shorty prior to their release), but I can see the games beeing that good, that many people will actually buy a VR headset for them and be happy in the long run. 

Right but if you look down while in VR chell's boobs will look really weird because they're too close to the camera. Perhaps that's what's taking them so long.

Its actually possible: https://www.rollingstone.com/glixel/features/valve-vr-games-still-coming-vive-titles-may-hit-psvr-w513110

I think Valve isnt interested in just boosting the Vive but VR in general, they never really did anything exclusive to boost their plattforms. Sure the games wouldnt come to Oculus Home but will likely be playable with the rift and the other headsets as well. Half life, Lef4Dead, Portal and even counter strike all saw console releases as well.