My memory is the 360 and PS3 dipped just below 720p sometimes, 880x720 there abouts as the absolute maximum drop but most around 1024x700 when they weren't actual 720p (1280x720) and quite a few ps3 games were 1080p but with dynamic resolutions in play. Wipeout, Stardust, Virtual Tennis, Ridge Racer were 1080p and a few others mainly PSN games. I don't think either PS3 or 360 had drops to 368p like Xenoblade on Switch which is between ED and SD resolution. I could be wrong but I don't remember any  game dropping to such a low resolution which is half the pixel count approx of the lowest drops I can remember of the 2 720p consoles.

My point if you can't store the graphic data then you can't show it either. Storage size is a factor in games. Many android games lack graphic detail not because they can't handle it but they just haven't got room for it. Some PS2 games clearly have better assets and varied textures thanks to its DVD optical disc compared to a heavily compressed 100MB android game. The android game might have a greater resolution and a better frame rate but the graphics can be simplified with more often repeated textures. 

I don't think it dev's cheaping out it's dev's trying to find a balance of what file size is acceptable for the end user. They have to weigh up performance with the reality that a large file size may prevent many people buying the game. You may say its wrong to make Rayman Legends so small a file size but thats great when you can store more games on a Switch. You can take the Switch outside and have a choice of games to play and the only compromise is a bit of slowdown here and there and a slightly inferior image which is more noticeable when docked.

I don't think the audio would be too bad on ps3 with regard memory. The audio hardware is meant to be exceptionally good which I think is a common theme with all sony hardware, decent DAC's, DMA and with the ps3 one cell processor pretty much dedicated to uncompressing, compressing on the fly and some decent cache built-in. The PS3 has always been pretty exceptional for audio.  A comparison with 360 often showed the PS3 sound to be much better. The dolby 5.1 of the 360 not only had less channels, lossy sound but I feel missed some of the detail present in the ps3 probably due to fitting it onto a standard dvd disc instead of bluray. The earlier generation was an easy win for the original xbox with its dedicated 5.1 chip over ps2 which had 5.1 unlike gamecube but seemed much more limited with in-game surround effects even if the music scores were equally good.

Alan Wake was 540p on 360, Homefront was 576p on both PS3 and 360, Tales of Vesperia 576p on PS3. Tony Hawk Project 8, 585p. Tekken 6, 576p on PS3. The list goes on; sub-HD games were abundant on PS3 and 360. Xenoblade 2 is clearly not a well optimized game, probably because, as we recently found out, most of Monolith was tied up assisting with Breath of the Wild.

When you have 32GB of cart space and the same of hard drive space, plus support for expandable memory up to a terabyte, Rayman being 2.9GB was simply a bad call on the part of Ubisoft.

PS3 did have an audio advantage versus the Xbox 360, but at the end of the day, it had to keep sound data in a tiny pool of memory by modern standards, less than a quarter of a gigabyte had to be shared between audio, OS, game logic, etc.

If you want to look at outsider games you can even go up to the next gen machine, you got Ark running at 640p/20 on the base ps4 or 720p/30 on the pro, with uncapped framerates but never stable or good in terms of what a machine can do and even worse performance on X1. Telltale games batman also pulls the resolution down to 640p on the PS4 and even lower on the X1.

Always have to understand that badly optimised games do not mean poor hardware.

it depends, how many games your looking at, you can only use that excuse for so long, if you are talking 1 one 5 games running worse, then yea. if you are talking about 8 out-10 games running worse then its a hardware problem, not well designed, has disadvantages that's giving developers problems.

Because Skyrim is a good idea with typical Bethesda shit programming that got better over time. When you're porting a game for the nth time, I would hope you're not doing so with the same embarrassing level of execution that Skyrim originally did.

In other words, I don't trust a Bethesda title as a benchmark.

FIFA 18 demonstrates the gap too; 1080p on Switch over 720p on PS3/360, plus improved shaders, textures, and effects.

And FIFA is a game I would never play. I'll have a personal opinion on the matter after I play a Switch port that I've played on the PS3.

Okay, all I'm saying is, your personal opinion doesn't change the facts of the matter; Switch is objectively more graphically capable than PS3/360, regardless of whether you acknowledge it.

I tried to read that far too many times.

Try again please.

But visually not a single game can come close to Horizon on Switch no matter how restricted it is.