But it still can't lock at either 1080p or 60fps on PS4. Heck, Xbox One can drop into the 40s and to 828p or lower, and that's a system much, much stronger than Switch, so 720p/30fps locked on Switch just isn't a realistic target.

But thats a point, despite its not lock on PS4, huge majority of time runs at 1080p/60fps, on XB1 can drop to 40s and 820p but also goes to 1080p/60fps, but Switch version is also droping to 20s at 600p with bad frame pacing. So like I wrote, I definitely think Doom port for Switch is not best done port, bad frame rate pacing just proves that, and now this with Rocket League, it seems Panic Button did not optimised those two ports well enough.

It "proves" no such thing. Rocket League clearly lacked the necessarily time and resource investment, but if Doom 2016 can bring Xbox One down to 828p/40s at stress points, it's simply not realistic to expect the much weaker Switch hardware to handle that same stress point at a locked 720p/30.

If you want high end PS4 games on Switch, you might need to adjust your expectations, lest you spend this entire generation disappointed, because you're never going to see a game as advanced or more advanced than Doom running at a locked 720p/30 or higher on Switch.

I disagree, 828p/40 fps compared to 620p/20 fps with downgraded visions is huge difference even when we look difrent in specs of XB1 and Switch, remember we dont talking only about 620p/20fps and bad frame pacing, but worse visuals. You saying that Rocket League clearly lacked the necessarily time and resource investment, but its seem thats also case with Doom.

My expections are in check, if game runs at dynamic 1080p/60fps res on PS4 where huge majority of time game relly runs at 1080p/60fps, nothing tells that Switch cant handle same port at 720p/30fps (I also dont talk about locked but definatly about much stable frame rate) with worse visuals. Also, dont forget, this is first high end Switch port and first Panic Button Switch game so optimisation was not best in any case, so I stick to what I wrote, I definitely think Doom port for Switch is not best done port and that Panic Button dont deserves praise for this port. I guess we will se how other current gen ports will look and projects outside Panic Button.

I'm not saying there's no room for improvement, but you're painting the Switch port of Doom as worse than it is. It's not a 20fps game, on regular difficulty it runs at 30fps the majority of the time. DF used the hardest difficulty as a stress test, remember. With more optimization it could've had fewer dips below both 720p and 30fps but the fact that it runs in a recognizable and playable state at all is a minor miracle given the gulf in hardware power between Switch and PS4/Xbone, so I think it's a bit unfair towards the guys at Panic Button to call it a bad port. It's not a great port, but it's decent given the circumstances.

I disagree, 828p/40 fps compared to 620p/20 fps with downgraded visions is huge difference even when we look difrent in specs of XB1 and Switch, remember we dont talking only about 620p/20fps and bad frame pacing, but worse visuals. You saying that Rocket League clearly lacked the necessarily time and resource investment, but its seem thats also case with Doom.

My expections are in check, if game runs at dynamic 1080p/60fps res on PS4 where huge majority of time game relly runs at 1080p/60fps, nothing tells that Switch cant handle same port at 720p/30fps (I also dont talk about locked but definatly about much stable frame rate) with worse visuals. Also, dont forget, this is first high end Switch port and first Panic Button Switch game so optimisation was not best in any case, so I stick to what I wrote, I definitely think Doom port for Switch is not best done port and that Panic Button dont deserves praise for this port. I guess we will se how other current gen ports will look and projects outside Panic Button.

I'm not saying there's no room for improvement, but you're painting the Switch port of Doom as worse than it is. It's not a 20fps game, on regular difficulty it runs at 30fps the majority of the time. DF used the hardest difficulty as a stress test, remember. With more optimization it could've had fewer dips below both 720p and 30fps but the fact that it runs in a recognizable and playable state at all is a minor miracle given the gulf in hardware power between Switch and PS4/Xbone, so I think it's a bit unfair towards the guys at Panic Button to call it a bad port. It's not a great port, but it's decent given the circumstances.

I just mentioned 20fps because you mentione 40fps for XB1. But game also have bad frame rate pacing, thats another proof of not best optimisation. Fact that Doom runs on Switch doesnt mean either thats good port (even DF praised port only beacuse we have Doom game in full handheld mode), so I dont think its good port and that Panic Button deserves praise even if game look and run good most of time, beacuse it could done better. We will see how other current gen ports and projects outside Panic Button will look, especially games espacily games from second half of 2018. and 2019.

Well, I'm warning you now, if these are the standards you're going to be applying to all high end PS4/Xbone games ported to Switch, you're going to be spending this entire generation calling every one of them a "bad port".

Hardly that 1st year and 1st current gen port, and port that seems that don't have best optimisation, can be standard for rest of generation.