They did step up sharpness over BOTW by adding FSR.

Visibility hasn't been a problem for me personally; the game can sometimes have a hazy look but never to a detrimental extent. Sure it's not your TV settings?

I don't know man. The graphics and perfomance hardly being improved from a game that was made for wii u 6 years ago is kinda of sad. it's not Nintendo like to be honest. doesn't really matter a year from now we will get switch 2 and  will no longer have worry about games looking like crap anymore for nintendo. imagine a zelda with red dead 2 type graphics, heck even in this style at 1440p/60fps would make a massive difference.

Just replying back to a a few people that mentioned me. Someone said there some improvement but there are also downgrades like when you move the camera resolution takes a hit over all and frame rate worse overall its hardly anything that's worth talking about

As for DF saying this is impressive its not. This engine was for the wiiu and that's something most people forgot if this was built for the switch ground up this would probably look and run much better.

I think what you are failing to factor in is the fact that this ISN'T just BotW on the Switch. The game is able to seamlessly transition between three (actually more like two and a half) huge worlds, not just the single world that is found on BotW. You can go from the sky all the way down to the depths without a single loading screen. They focused on increasing draw distance to help this transition feel more seamless. While they did create a more aggressive dynamic resolution and implement reconstruction techniques, what they've pulled off on the Switch is truly impressive. In addition to this, they've improved some aspects of the game (shadows, textures, albeit not to a significant extent) and they've even SHORTENED the load times. The game is 2.5 times larger than BotW and they managed to reduce load times...isn't that crazy?

When considering graphics it is important to think about the scope of the game. It's quite easy to suggest that linear game A is more graphically impressive than open world game B if you don't. 

The amount of whining about the way that I expressed my opinion in the OP is far more ridiculous than anything I said there.  It appears to me that many commenters have (some likely deliberately) misunderstood it, so as to not have to take my criticisms seriously.  I clearly said "reminds me of" not "this game could be on PS2", and I was very clearly only talking about a few elements.  

I have not engaged in most of that side of the discussion because it's not necessary for me to back up my opinions of what something reminds me of. It is literally impossible for me to be wrong about what I think about something.  I'm not sure how to provide evidence for what I'm reminded of when playing a game. 

Further, this idea that I'm way out in left field is ridiculous, as evidenced by the fact that at least a third of the people commenting in this thread are largely in agreement with me, and a good deal more are partially there.  

Some people feel differently. That's fine. This has been a mostly good discussion (which was my goal), aside from some people crying because I dared say anything even remotely critical of their beloved video game.  I even said, multiple times now, that I like the game.  I opened the OP with that, as a matter of fact.  But, some people, especially on the internet in forums like this, are incapable of engaging in mature discussion.  It is what it is.  

I really don't care about the size of the world. None of the fans of the series actually asked for a bigger world. we mainly wanted more dungeons, better performance and  graphics, a Much more refined UI. weapons that don't break for many, and for me especially new combat system because this one feels really dated now imo. I mean i guess that's impressive if you wanna mainly focus on the loadt imes  draw distance but thats the only improvements really on something that came on wiiu 6 years ago.  

I really don't care about the size of the world. None of the fans of the series actually asked for a bigger world. we mainly wanted more dungeons, better performance and  graphics, a Much more refined UI. weapons that don't break for many, and for me especially new combat system because this one feels really dated now imo. I mean i guess that's impressive if you wanna mainly focus on the loadt imes  draw distance but thats the only improvements really on something that came on wiiu 6 years ago.  

You keep mentioning the time & the fact the engine began on wii u...

Whether it was 6 months, 6 years or 6 decades, the switch can only be pushed so far & if BotW was already tapping most of the horsepower then it's simply diminishing returns when it comes to optimisation.

And just because a game engine was created on one platform doesn't necessarily mean it can't run efficiently on another. It's way more complicated than you're making out, that's why I leave the technical stuff to folk that know what they're taking about. DF know way more than I do, and I suspect more than you too. Dismissing their take just because it doesn't fit with what you want to be true isn't accomplishing anything. 

Nintendo chose to spend the extra performance they could squeeze on creating a bigger world, over higher fidelity. You may not agree with that approach but I don't think they'll really give a monkeys what you think when the game sells 10m in 3 days & receives overwhelmingly positive reviews. 

If you want higher fidelity and a smaller open world, there are plenty of options on other platforms - maybe this game just ain't for you... 

Right now you are complaining about gameplay aspects, not technical aspects. The comment that I originally responded to focused on your opinion of a lack of technical improvements from BotW to TotK. I'm saying there are technical improvements. Regardless of whether you wanted a bigger world or not, that's what TotK has. You cannot judge it's technical performance without considering the size and scope of the world in comparison to it's predecessor. 

That's not even considering the multitude of other technical aspects of the game, particularly the physics, which have been tweaked and expanded upon substantially. In BotW each item had it's own density, and moved based on it's form. In TotK each item still has that, and items can now be combined, so Nintendo had to account for how items might move when combined, what their density will be when combined, etc. Take shield surfing for example. You can easily surf on your shield, but if you combine your shield with, say, a rock you'll instantly fall off of the shield when trying to surf. But if you combine your shield with something that is flat and smooth, you can still shield surf and the surfing will be better or worse based on the traction you might have. That stuff isn't simple, and it takes a lot of playtesting to ensure that you aren't completely breaking the game in some way. 

If you don't like the gameplay, that's fine. But that's a separate discussion from whether TotK is more technically impressive than BotW on Switch. Which it absolutely is. 

Of course  Totk is doing more it coming 6 years later on more powerful hardware just saying it's not impressive after BOTW a game that came out on WiiU which was basically  slightly more powerful then 360.