I agree with the bold part.  While higher resolutions are nice and a consistent framerate is vital for gameplay, when it comes to the actual graphics it's the assets themselves that really matter to me.  I'd rather see improved base assets than a jump to 4k or 120 fps.

When it comes to the Switch 2, the main thing I want to see is a generational leap over the current Switch.  I want to see Mario look a generation above Odessey, Zelda a generation above Tears of the Kingdom, Metroid a generation above Prime Remastered, etc.  In addition, I want the 3rd party ports to be as high quality as the Switch ports of Doom, Doom Eternal, Witcher 3, Nier Automata, Crysis, Persona 5, etc.  If it has to top out at 1080p to do that I don't care.

It's not like you get nothing out the trade off on a hybrid. The huge addition is you're getting a portable version of every game that you can play anywhere you want. 

Frankly, that's a much bigger deal to a lot of people than having a resolution bump + 60 fps. 

Want proof? Anyone dumb enough to claim a Switch that was not a hybrid but could run all its games like BOTW at 1440p + 60 fps would sell anywhere close to the current Switch? 

It wouldn't. It probably would have trouble selling even over 20 million units instead of the 150+ million the Switch is going to finish at. A lot more people are interested in a Breath of the Wild at 900p + 30 fps AND portable + home play versus a version that would be maybe 1440p + 60 fps but losing the portability. 

There's no game I've ever played in my life that was ugly or not fun to play at 1080p + 30 fps that suddenly became good looking and fun to play at 1440p + 60 fps. 

It's a nice to have. It's not a generational shift or even close to that though. And also funny how we don't have every PS5 thread flooded with people saying the 4090 is a much, much better piece of hardware and you shouldn't enjoy PS5 games because they can't possibly run as well as they could on a 4090 and PS5 is clearly a generation behind a 4090, etc. etc. etc. Every game on the PS5 that's available on PC, a 4090 can run it at a better resolution and better frame rate than a PS5, but no one seems compelled to have to put that into every PS5 discussion. Interesting how the gate keeping only applies to one console and one console only. 

Probably because nobody in a ps5 thread would be ridiculous enough to claim the ps5 is the same hardware class as the 4090.

And nobody is saying people shouldn't enjoy switch games.  

The only dispute is if S2 is the same class as the ps5....  the answer is, no.  

Nobody goes into PS5 threads to tout the 4090's superiority because they have a life. 

It's only done for one console and one console only and no one has claimed literally 100% equivalent performance ever between Switch 2 and next-gen consoles. Everyone knows there is a trade off and there is an upside for that trade off too, the upside being you get a fully portable experience on top of a home experience. 

How many PS5 threads have someone coming into them and stating for no real particular reason that they own a 4090 and cannot stand to play at game below 120 fps? 

No one really behaves like in those cases. Why? Because they don't feel the need to gate keep. 

No idea.  Because when I was a ps5 owner and people said PC was a generational leap above, I agreed with them.  It isn't that hard to accept the S2 will be a huge upgrade over the Switch, but we'll short of the ps5.  

I'm looking forward to Nintendo software on a 2050.

No it's really not complex, most people don't the need to have to go into every thread and say that because they have some tact. 

Everyone is well aware a Switch 2 is not literally a PS5/XSX, the same way a PS5 is not a 4090 yet runs all the same games at a reasonably playable state. Same way an XBox Series S runs all the XBox Series X games. 

But it's only when it's Switch 2 that certain posters find the need to spam the thread and let it be known they can't play games below 60 fps, lol. It's pretty stupid all around. 

I agree with the bold part.  While higher resolutions are nice and a consistent framerate is vital for gameplay, when it comes to the actual graphics it's the assets themselves that really matter to me.  I'd rather see improved base assets than a jump to 4k or 120 fps.

When it comes to the Switch 2, the main thing I want to see is a generational leap over the current Switch.  I want to see Mario look a generation above Odessey, Zelda a generation above Tears of the Kingdom, Metroid a generation above Prime Remastered, etc.  In addition, I want the 3rd party ports to be as high quality as the Switch ports of Doom, Doom Eternal, Witcher 3, Nier Automata, Crysis, Persona 5, etc.  If it has to top out at 1080p to do that I don't care.

You position has migrated to exactly what I've been saying for months.  Nice!  We are aligned.  

It's not like you get nothing out the trade off on a hybrid. The huge addition is you're getting a portable version of every game that you can play anywhere you want. 

Frankly, that's a much bigger deal to a lot of people than having a resolution bump + 60 fps. 

Want proof? Anyone dumb enough to claim a Switch that was not a hybrid but could run all its games like BOTW at 1440p + 60 fps would sell anywhere close to the current Switch? 

It wouldn't. It probably would have trouble selling even over 20 million units instead of the 150+ million the Switch is going to finish at. A lot more people are interested in a Breath of the Wild at 900p + 30 fps AND portable + home play versus a version that would be maybe 1440p + 60 fps but losing the portability. 

There's no game I've ever played in my life that was ugly or not fun to play at 1080p + 30 fps that suddenly became good looking and fun to play at 1440p + 60 fps. 

It's a nice to have. It's not a generational shift or even close to that though. And also funny how we don't have every PS5 thread flooded with people saying the 4090 is a much, much better piece of hardware and you shouldn't enjoy PS5 games because they can't possibly run as well as they could on a 4090 and PS5 is clearly a generation behind a 4090, etc. etc. etc. Every game on the PS5 that's available on PC, a 4090 can run it at a better resolution and better frame rate than a PS5, but no one seems compelled to have to put that into every PS5 discussion. Interesting how the gate keeping only applies to one console and one console only.