Yes. 100%

It would be so awful to be the kind of person who can't appreciate one of the best games in years simply because it looks great but not nearly as great as games on newer consoles lol. I like how these people always think they are telling something important by pointing out that a handheld system is not as powerful as a console.

Whenever I play my Switch I either don't notice the graphics at all if they are just okay, or I think to myself dang this game looks great. Zelda is one of those games when I think damn this game looks great! That said, sure, I'm looking forward to how great next-gen Zelda will be in a bunch of years from now, but in no way does that stop me from appreciating how beautiful Switch Zelda looks, nor how incredible the games are.

I cared about graphical differences a lot back in the 90s and early 2000s when games were still in their early days graphically because well I was a kid and also bad graphics could be all blurry and pixelated and glitchy. Nowadays, unless the dev/art team are either not good or don't put in much effort, every game looks great. The idea that a beautiful game like Zelda on Switch is ruined simply because it's not 4k is just sad for the people who actually see things that way.

It is unfortunate a game that big had to have been built around hardware so weak. The Switch 2 will help a ton though and by the time the system after that is out it should be way less jarring since a level of power between the PS5 and Series X and the consoles after those should age far better than the Switch's hardware has even when that level of power is very outdated.

I think the switch has more power left.. playing Xenoblade 3 and it's beautiful with zero slowdown. I have tried bioshock remastered and it's locked and beautiful. It just takes alot of optimisation.

Personally, I think people should learn to make criticisms without hyperbole. Or, at the very least, play a few games from the retro systems that are being used as a point of comparison. 

There is nothing about TotK that feels like it would belong on a PS2. This is what open world gaming looked like on the PS2:

Grass was pretty much always just billboard textures laid out in a cross pattern or following the players camera. A good majority of games wouldn't have grass bending because, well, they would never want to waste polygon budget on rending grass. 

Here is an indie game from about 15 years ago:

Here is an indie game from 10 years ago:

I just don't see how it's necessary to suggest that TotK looks even remotely like these games in order to say you wish TotK was available on a more powerful system. 

The WiiU whilst based on the Gamecube CPU... It's very much in a different league entirely.

Normally over time developers get better at leveraging a platforms strengths and weaknesses to present better visuals...

So it goes to show that, while the Switch is significantly more efficient than the WiiU and significantly more powerful, that Breath of the Wild was already pushing the Switch hardware fairly hard, so the improvements we get in Tears of the Kingdom is pretty moderate at best.

It's also likely a testament to Nintendo's porting abilities in 2017 as well.

I think people need to re-evaluate Nintendo's position in the market, for all intents and purposes they have exited the fixed home console market and are focusing on Portable consoles.

The WiiU was not a console that pushed hardware capability, essentially being almost a generation behind the Xbox One and Playstation 4 in performance, it failed for a series of reasons, rather than one or two.

The Switch however was a unique enough device which was comparatively powerful from a gaming perspective compared to it's competition. (I.E. Mostly Tablets/Phones.)
It is a handheld first however and when analysing handheld hardware, the Switch was comparatively Nintendo's highest-end hardware for many generations when compared to it's peers.

There was only a few viable SoC's that would have beaten the Switch's hardware on launch if Nintendo didn't cut back on clocks... And I would personally rather have seen Nintendo leverage Tegra X2 over Tegra X1 (Something I have said since before it launched) as it would have offered 50% more clockrate for the same TDP due to Pascals optimization on Clocks vs Maxwell.

We don't know that for sure.

Nintendo was late to the generation, Sony and Sega had a head start.

Nintendo also had several policies which did hinder more "mature" games on it's platforms during that time as well.

In saying that, the Nintendo 64 was still an amazing console and it did have some of the best games of all time, some of those games would possibly have been technically worse if they were on CD-Rom. - Mostly open world/RPG titles due to the need for streaming vs loading. (Ocarina of time?)

It doesn't matter how any company approached the 6th gen, Sony had it locked down. It is what it is.

Sega, Nintendo and Microsoft just couldn't steal enough market-share, the 7th gen was when things could be shaken up and it did.

Sega launched before the PS2 but still crumbled, Microsoft had more power and an attractive box and still couldn't garner enough marketshare.

What made Nintendo stand out, was it's first party games.

Keep in mind that the Playstation 4 relies on mechanical spinning storage, the Switch is all solid state.

Random reads/writes are always going to favor the Switch.

Breath of the Wild is actually using AMD's Fidelity FX Super Resolution technology as it's hardware agnostic, it works by rendering the game at a lower resolution and using an open-sourced spatial upscaling algorithm (Lanczos).

It would probably have been in Nintendo's best interest in using FSR2 rather than 1.

But DLSS isn't a requirement for good upscaling/reconstruction, lots of alternatives are out there these days, just nVidia is a step ahead with it's latest DLSS.

Probably be a Breath of the Wild+Tears of the Kingdom remastered.

I tend not to use my Switch in Handheld... But I am gaming it on my PC monitor which is a pretty average 32" 1440P/144hz panel and it looks soft.

Haven't tried it on my 85" 4k TV yet.

Game looks "fine". - It's definitely got a noisy/pixelated presentation.

But it's a Nintendo game as well, you can't expect super sharp visuals.

I don't see any judder when moving the camera and I have the camera speed on fast.

I think criticizing something and making overexagerated and bad faith comparisons like you did are two very different things.

Well Windwaker had super sharp visuals in the remaster, but also looked great on TV when it came out, matching the tv standard at the time.

I'm gonna fiddle with the tv settings,my main issue is the low contrast, maybe it's as simple (and archaic) as the TV expecting Full RGB while the Switch is outputting limited RGB range. At least that's what it looks like. I thought those days were over!



It's not that, Switch is set to full, tv is auto but only changes when i switch it to limited so is also in Full.

I also tested surround sound as TotK should have 5.1, but no settings in game. Good thing I did as for some reason that input was set to 7ch stereo doh. At least it sounds 3D now :) Picture still looks rather dull, like when games thought less contrast is more realistic... Maybe it gets better on the ground.

Switch is dated - yes. But Nintendo cheaping out on the hardware every generation just exacerbates the problem. 

The answer here is simple: AAA is not defined by graphics, but by the depth of the game. And the depth of the game here is defined by the delicate quality of the art, the depth of the gameplay and the intense feeling that you are part of a legendary story.

The Playstation and Xbox have gotten people too interested in graphics, when graphics support the depth of a game. A game with great, even excellent graphics can be mediocre. But a game with deep quality and acceptable graphical capabilities cannot.