Those must be some awful ports but like you said, at least it's playable and there's something to be said about using your imagination although with that loss of quality you almost expect for them to charge less on Switch. It just seems worse with this game though cuase part of the sell is the open world and Hogwarts, it's a big chunk of the initial appeal.  If this was a game where the open world geography and assets take more of a back seat like Shadow of Mordor, Borderlands or Arkham knight, it'd be easier to overlook but I assume since you listed them they must be on the broken side.  

There were pretty terrible; Shadow of Mordor on PS3 not only runs below 20fps a lot of the time but has near constant audio stuttering that's painful to listen to. The original version of Ark on Switch was so bad it still boggles my mind that they saw fit to release it. Borderlands 2 on Vita is a very ambitious port but spends a lot of its time well below 20fps.

The Playstation 3 was more powerful than the Xbox 360, also had worst ports.
SNES vs Genesis.
Saturn vs PS1.
Gamecube vs Xbox.

Every platform exhibits bad ports irrespective of hardware capabilities.

PC was notorious in the 7th gen for receiving garbage console ports that not only performed badly... But they also looked bad despite the PC being multiples more powerful than the original console hardware.

Bad ports are not and never have been a determiner for total hardware capabilities, ports by their very nature are designed to be a jack-of-all trades, master of none on the visual fidelity front, they aren't built from the ground up with the hardware in mind.

And obviously the WiiU having more advanced graphics feature set and additional hardware accellerated units, isn't going to showcase 7th gen ports in the best light.

We have already touched upon this point multiple times over the last several days... And it honestly seems you just aren't getting it, I am starting to think you aren't taking these discussions seriously.

No one cares about the opinions of a random member on another forum in internet space.
It's not empirical evidence, it's not scientific, it's not even relevant or even a credible source.

Again... We have already discussed Breath of the Wild running on Xbox 360, another example of you either not being able to remember conversations or continue to repeat the same arguments that no one is refuting.

Yes Breath of the Wild can run on Xbox 360, I have already elaborated on this previously.

As an aside... And we have discussed this already... Someone else's qualifications and experiences does not override another's, you don't know my background, educational history or experience. Remember that.

Red Dead is an amazing looking 7th gen game. But it's rendering features are old, simple and not visually advanced.

For my NES, SNES, N64, PS1, PS2... I use a cheap line doubler (Based on the retrotink) which does a brilliant job cleaning up the image and outputs to HDMI, especially for the Nintendo 64 which does not scale well to larger displays due to it's naturally blurry output... But that's great for composite.

I use component to a HDMI converter for component signals from consoles like the OG Xbox as it's raw output is good enough.

The mClassic does make a significant difference... Depending on game.
For something like Mario Kart 8 with a 1080P output it's pretty useless.
But something like Tears of the Kingdom? It adds a significant amount of additional clarity due to it's sub-1080P resolution and that's where it's strength lays.
I am hoping they update the mClassic with a full 4k/60 upscale rather than the limited 4k/30 limitation at some point, it's a great little device if your primary use of the Switch is gaming in docked mode.

I'm sorry. i do care about there opinions cause they know there stuff, and they have developers post there, are you the only person on the internet that knows what they are talking about? I'll take there opinion over yours  anyday. They don't act like their opinion is fact like yours. I also can judge with my own eyes. I don't need you forcing your opinion on me. Again even one of the mods here told you graphics are calcualtions something your eye will  never see. 

As for wiiu it's not based on anything that's ground breaking, developers were already familiar with the same gpu since it's in the same family as the 360,  you ask for evidence and for 40 plus ports not even one really showed a meaningful advantage gpu wise, I find that impossible but hey developers can't seem to know how to use it I'll just believe you cause  you think botw which  is not even as technically demanding as gtav proves something. The systems you mentioned  in ports you can see massive advantages in color or resolution. Plus they were very exotic hardware for there time. Ps3 is also not really more powerful, it's on par.

I'm sure they're glad to hear you say that, yet your empiric evidence doesn't matter when everything you said up to this point support no verifiable facts. If you could simply stop using the argument of authority(good fallacy btw) to justify circling around the same  flawed points you keep coming back to for the past ten of pages, it'd be great.

Aside from beyond3d. games do all the evidence how about developers calling it a 360 6 years later or one saying  iys weaker but ultimately wiiu had ton of ports and not one showed a meaningful advantage where the average person could even notice and performance on it's weak cpu couldn't handle open world games, they ran significantly worse. It's weaker then both 360/ps3 that's a fact. I understand the gpu more modern but it lacked hp and lacked that cpu that help with graphics like the 360/ps3 that's what makes it overall weaker.

And once again you keep circling back to the ports ... Despite the fact a port like the RDR one on Switch you're so dear of isn't exploiting the feature sets of the newest hardware, it is that simple. 

There's no problem in your opinion of liking the look of RDR better than what else is on the console but keep in mind that it is not an impressive technical feat for the hardware it is running on against the multitude of examples that were given that exactly does exploit the Switch more advanced processing features the previous generation could not achieve. This is the fact you keep turning down because you might be sad? that there's any who agrees with your flawed perspective.

Although you could make a thread about "the best looking games on Switch", you might actually stand a better chance there because it inherently wouldn't be about just graphics but more-so the overall visual look.

When I was talking about rdr I was talking about my opinion but the problem with pemalite said I can't use that as a example but the fact is Interms of using the hardware power it's way more demanding then Mario rpg or mario wonder and those games also don't really use any advanced features but he made a problem cause he could not get over   ps3 vs 360 is subjective debate.

https://forum.beyond3d.com/threads/can-we-really-judge-a-consoles-power-on-exclusive-games-or-multiplaform-games.63681/ pemalite why not join the thread and prove them wrong.

If there was a thread on favorite-looking games on Switch I would have included 2D stuff. I don't think anyone objects to the subjective this is my fave such and such. Digital Foundry is their educated opinion on what is pushing the hardware. One of my favorite looking games on PS4 is Earth's Dawn but it's a 2D game that could run on a PS2. The game looks like what if Vanillaware made something like a side-scrolling Gears of War. (It's not Vanillaware)

Let me correct you there.
You -think- they know their stuff as it conforms to your already established confirmation biases. - None of it has actually been verified as factual or even remotely accurate.

vgchartz also has it's own developers, CGI is one such individual.
But again... And we have already talked about this prior, but it seems you have forgotten... But the word "developer" has a wide-reaching definition that will encompass artists, programmers, administrators, network engineers and more, you can be a "developer" and simply be responsible for maintaining a log-in server somewhere... Doesn't mean you know how to build a game from scratch or even understand hardware.

Using the excuse to blindly believe some random person on another forum because "that person is a developer" is thus stupid. - Can you tell me what that developers role was on a project? Can you name the projects they even worked on? What their qualifications are? Or are you just blindly accepting their claim that "they are a developer?"

Again, you need to start thinking more on this.

This is a logical fallacy as I have never asserted that I am an authority on any topic.

The WiiU's GPU is not in the same family as the Xbox 360.
The Xbox 360's GPU is a DirectX 9.0 shader model 3.0 class graphics processor, the WiiU's GPU is a generation newer.

Don't make arbitrary false claims.

This is a stupid statement, I suggest you read my previous post in it's entirety as it seems you are failing to comprehend the bigger picture.

Breath of the Wild is more technically demanding, it's got a more advanced rendering pipeline.
It's got a more robust and comprehensive physics system and simulation system. I.E. Fire Propagation that can be influenced by the dynamic weather system. I.E. Rain puts it out, wind increases rate of spread.

I suggest you read my previous posts as you have misconstrued my statements to be something they are not.

Are you purposefully being obtuse and obstinate?

Again.. And the fact I need to reinforce/repeat this, the WiiU's GPU's rendering strengths are different to the Xbox 360's.

The Xbox 360 is able to perform significant amounts of Alpha Effects and the WiiU isn't due to the GPU/memory architecture, that means that games designed for the Xbox 360 will intrinsically fall short when ported to the WiiU.
And the reverse also holds true as the WiiU is far far far more capable at GPU compute tasks. Think: More complex shaders.

This is actually also why Xbox 360 ports to the Playstation 3 or PC also often (Not always!) fell short, because of the heavy use of Alpha effects.

The Switch shares many of the same strengths as the WiiU, but with a few key additional advantages in certain areas (I would name them, but I think you will fail to comprehend the significance as you have eloquently demonstrated prior.), which is why Switch ports are often just a resolution/framerate bump, WiiU games on Switch scale really well.