For me its metroid prime remastered

Just watched footage of xenoblade 3 and omg it looks terrible, grass disappearinga and reappearing right under you feet and looks sub hd, looks terrible. botw is beautiful though. Botw and red dead are in a class of there own.

The feature sets I listed fall into graphics.

I shall list some of them again.

* Global illumination (Radiosity)
* Local reflections. (Not just a cube map.)
* Ambient Occlusion.
* Bokeh Depth of field.

********

The Witcher 3 is employing better graphics than Red Dead Redemption on Switch. It's an "impossible port" not a 7th gen port.
Also open world.
https://www.eurogamer.net/digitalfoundry-2019-the-witcher-3-switch-tech-analysis

You are getting:
* Screen space reflections.
* Ambient Occlusion.
* God Rays.
* Motion Blur.
* Temporal Anti-Aliasing.

And more.

Is it a 1080P output? No. But graphics aren't all about resolution, otherwise everything would be 8k by now with PS2 visuals.

Again this really doesn't matter and up to personal taste. like mario wonder and mario oddysia are in the list and they aren't pushing the tech that witcher 3, doom, and the more technically  advanced switch games. it's all about balance and red dead is the perfect blance it still pushing the switch cause it aint running the game at 60fps like the others games on the list do i have no idea to what you are even talk about here. like doom is probably way more techically advanced then prime remaster but everyone is picking that over doom. also using advanced garphic tech doesn't help much when the game is looking like mud witcher 3 for example and doom, that's why they are not even on the list for DF or anyone here.

Naturally, this is partly down to John and Oliver's personal tastes; while technology can be judged objectively, art direction is subjective. Still, it's cool to have their input; Switch may be low end kit compared to the competition, but it's still proven itself capable of producing beautiful results in the hands of talented artists and programmers.

A common misconception. Because some games don't push for realistic visuals somehow they don't use advanced graphical techniques. It's a logical fallacy.

I don't think anyone said that, but most realistic games use way more computing budget for models and envoriments then a cell shaded game, or more cartoony game, so those games have more room for more graphical effects like 60fps or advanced graphical techniques.

I'm in two minds on Xenoblade 3; on the one hand I personally wouldn't consider it one of the best looking Switch games, but on the other I can see why it was chosen by DF as it presents huge open worlds with a lot of nice effects work like temporal upsampling, screen space reflections, cloud simulation, per-object motion blur, and bokeh depth of field.

So while I wouldn't say it's a great looking game, I certainly wouldn't say it looks terrible by Switch standards, considering the scale it's pushing.

Monolith always knows how to max Nintendo hardware. Not to mention nearly unbreakable engines. Most open worlds are full of glitches. You don't get that in Xenoblade. Not to mention they assisted the development of BoTW open world. Every time Zeldaring posts I Just hear the song Mr Booze but booze replaced with Wrong. Mr Wrong. XB3 might be bigger than XCX but not sure. It's massive either way.

You have to learn opinions ain't wrong. 

I really don't believe this is good by switch standards. Developers should focus on a scale that runs well on the hardware, not 540p and looks like mud. This looks terrible to me. looking at the red dead pics i posted red dead looks miles better and so does botw.