I regularly replay older Zelda games. Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword still have some of the best dungeons in the series imo. I last played Twilight Princess HD last year, and Skyward Sword when the remaster came out. Windwaker HD is also a game I regularly go back to, and it has aged very well due to its art style. And of course A Link to the Past and Majora's Mask are my favorites of the series before BOTW and TOTK released. 

The thing about Zelda games is that even if they aren't overall the best in the series, they can be the best at something.  once you know the puzzles and how the game works don't game just don't feel fun to go back as compared to something like Mario, or sekiro 

Didn't read the discussion in this thread yet, so somebody else might have said this, but personally the fact that BOTW and TOTK actually have non-trivial physics systems that make the world feel alive > eye-candy, in terms of immersion in my opinion. I hope other open-world games learn from this.

If graphics are a big concern, buy the game to support Nintendo and then use an emulator on a gaming PC with texture packs and 4k resolution. Yuzu runs games pretty great a week or two after release.

Edit: I see somebody mention BOTW vs. Horizon Zero Dawn. I love Horizon, but the fact that BOTW actually had a dynamic physics system makes it feel more modern to me than Horizon does, despite how good Horizon looks.

One still feels like the future of open world games whereas the other feels like a cinematic experience from the 2010's. The prior is going to age and has already aged better than the latter, for me. 

Not in terms of perceived resolution though. I didn't expect Red Matter 2 to look sharper than 900p on a screen, but it does. Technically it shouldn't as PSVR2 is 2K per eye over 110 degree fov, while I sit 10ft from a 65" screen when playing Zelda. That's a 27 degree fov on the screen, 1600/27 = 60 pixels per degree, while PSVR2 can only offer up 20 pixels per degree. (But looks sharper up close due to stereoscopic view, and likely 120 'samples' vs 30 plays a role as well)

It must be super sampling or some other great form of anti aliasing to make it look sharper. The stars in the background are still quite big so the limitation is still there. There's a lot more to perceived resolution than simple pixel counts. Anti aliasing, contrast, color depth.

Anyway it was the first time for me when looking back to the tv after using VR that the TV looked less sharp than VR presentation. Normally I marvel at how amazingly sharp the tv is after taking the headset off. Immersion is no contest of course, as well as controls, but GT7 on tv looks much sharper than in the headset.

Anyway this whole diminishing returns, not seeing it yet!

You mentioned other stuff in your initial post, but if purely talking perceived resolution then fair enough.

My take on this whole topic is that it's a bit strange to point to one of the switch's greatest technical feats as the thing that makes it feel outdated... 

We're all aware of how long in the tooth the system's mobile chipset is, and knew what to expect from playing BotW & seeing previews of TotK, so why is the poster framing this as some revelation?

What was he expecting & why? 

You mentioned other stuff in your initial post, but if purely talking perceived resolution then fair enough.

My take on this whole topic is that it's a bit strange to point to one of the switch's greatest technical feats as the thing that makes it feel outdated... 

We're all aware of how long in the tooth the system's mobile chipset is, and knew what to expect from playing BotW & seeing previews of TotK, so why is the poster framing this as some revelation?

What was he expecting & why? 

I remember way back in 2008 or so on this forum there would be discussions about how weak the Wii was compared to the 360 and PS3. Often those of us on the Nintendo side would say, "as long as the gameplay is excellent I don't care how it looks." Then the reply would be "more powerful hardware is not just about how it looks, but allows for new experiences that couldn't be done before." Yet ironically, when I look back at that era, the games that pushed the boundaries of hardware in non-visual ways were just as often on the Wii as they were on the PS360. Xenoblade, for example, was one of the best open-world role-playing games of the 7th generation. Analogous games on other 7th generation platforms, like White Knight Chronicles  -- which had a similar combat system, art-style, and play-style had a world much smaller in scope and believability than Xenoblade. But the textures were nicer, and the image quality was better. Were and was, because now you can play the remaster of Xenoblade, which looks much better than WKC, or at a few years after Xenoblade's release you could play with a texture pack in Dolphin emulator and it looked on-par or better than WKC. Which world felt more believable and deep though? 

It is funny how much I can go back to many Wii titles and they feel more modern than quite a few PS360 titles that I enjoyed at the time. I can go back to Mario Galaxy and enjoy it without thinking, "this feels old", but recently I was playing Uncharted 1, and compared to UC4, it does feel old. Not necessarily visually, but mechanically. 

It seems obvious to me that when I will be replaying BOTW ten years from now (likely on an emulator) it will be a less dated experience than playing Horizon Zero Dawn. Why? Because the hardware was used to make a more believable, immersive world. And again, I love Horizon for what it is, a polished and fun cinematic experience that has an interesting world that I am not a part of, but BOTW is definitely the experience that makes me feel as if I am in the world.

Yeah, I feel much the same.

The Wii was for me the best console of the 7th gen (though I loved 360 and PS3 as well) in spite of being a generation behind in visuals, and many of its best games have aged more gracefully than most PS360 titles.

Metroid Prime 3 came out the same year as Mass Effect 1, yet revisiting them now, ME1 (amazing as it was in 2007) is a clunky mess today while MP3 still plays like a dream. Heck, I'd even say Prime 3 looks better now, even if it's less technically demanding, due to both art direction and polish.

Back when BOTW and Horizon came out these videos made the rounds; I feel they do an excellent job of demonstrating why BOTW is widely considered the better game in spite of being a generation behind in graphics technology. 

More power doesn't necessarily make for better games. 

What makes a better game will always be subjective. graphics can diffidently make some people fall in love with game, not me but my friend loves this game and can't stop gushing over forbidden west graphics and how beautiful exploring  the world is. personally my favorite games are Bloodborne, and SEKIRO  but many don't like them cause they are too challenging. 

Yeah it's always gonna be different strokes for different folks. 

I was just expressing my own view; I like beautiful visuals as much as the next guy, but for me, gameplay is king. A game can be utterly gorgeous, but if it's not fun to play, then I'll get bored and quit. On the other hand, I've played plenty of games where the graphics weren't great, but I was having too much fun to care.