Well interactivity isn't hard to do when you don't care what it looks like. For instance you can climb anywhere in BOTW but it's just one animation that makes no sense and you're just climbing up a flat vertical surface like you're Spider-Man and it takes me right out of the game world. This applies to pretty much everything else like cutting down a tree and every tree falling down as an identical log. Point is it all looks super cheap like I'm playing a game from early 2000s.

What a load of horseshit in bold. BOTW alone is the most insanely detailed open world, Something like Horizon is eye candy but lacks the interaction BOTW has with the world and environments. Xenoblade games are massive and detailed. They don't stick to weaker hardware because they're afraid of HD development. Christ they're over that. 3D was a bigger leap anyway. Nintendo putting out a console on par with Sony or MS would not only lose them money (something they are not fond of) but it would flop hard from being redundant. Console space has proven it has limited room, it doesn't need a 3rd of the same thing. Also unless by detailed you mean "realism" ...well that's a bad way to describe that. More detail doesn't mean realism either. System is stronger than a PS3 which did TLOU. It's not that Nintendo or the hardware is incapable, it's just the style they go with and always have gone with.

What a load of horseshit in bold. BOTW alone is the most insanely detailed open world, Something like Horizon is eye candy but lacks the interaction BOTW has with the world and environments. Xenoblade games are massive and detailed. They don't stick to weaker hardware because they're afraid of HD development. Christ they're over that. 3D was a bigger leap anyway. Nintendo putting out a console on par with Sony or MS would not only lose them money (something they are not fond of) but it would flop hard from being redundant. Console space has proven it has limited room, it doesn't need a 3rd of the same thing. Also unless by detailed you mean "realism" ...well that's a bad way to describe that. More detail doesn't mean realism either. System is stronger than a PS3 which did TLOU. It's not that Nintendo or the hardware is incapable, it's just the style they go with and always have gone with.

Cheap huh. Another horrible take. You just think realism is the only thing with a budget. lol ok

I'm just giving my humble opinion and sharing how I feel about it, why are you being so hostile? And yes graphics, animations, believability are indeed extremely important factors in creating immersion. 

I'm just giving my humble opinion and sharing how I feel about it, why are you being so hostile? And yes graphics, animations, believability are indeed extremely important factors in creating immersion. 

Yes it's cheap at $120 million. So cheap.

Well Halo Infinite is said to have a $500 million budget but it doesn't mean anything cause they evidently wasted a ton of money cause they couldn't figure out what they were doing and the game development was in hell and it took forever, yet it's still a dated looking game with a ton of content missing that you'd expect in the average Halo game. So maybe Nintendo also spent $120 million on BOTW but that game also took forever so maybe they also rebooted it several times and wasted a ton of money, doesn't change the fact that it's a cheap looking game in the end compared to other modern AAA games. 

BOTW is a Wii U game. It has AAA Wii U graphics. It's not really possible for it to look significantly better than it does while running all the simulations that it does to achieve its physics and chemistry systems in an open world setting.

I mean, would you criticize a PS4 game for not looking as good as a PS5 game?