It's ultimately down to personal preference; like I said, I personally don't consider Xenoblade 3 to be one of the best looking Switch games, but on a technical level it is a more demanding game than Red Dead. Which you prefer depends largely on aesthetics.

For me, Tears of the Kingdom is the best looking open world game on Switch, thanks to a combination of a gorgeous art style with impressive technical effects.

yes and no. Resolution is part graphics as well. Image quality is one the most important things when it comes to graphics, then you have the models and envoriments look more detailed. when talking about a technical level. the big thing is what trade offs are they doing, if you trading more advanced tech for lower resolution thne you are doing it right, you can't really look at both pics and honestly say X3 looks better cause it made bad trade offs and ruined image quality, even the envoriments have a insane amout of pop in and really don't have much in them.

The extent to which resolution matters is a matter of opinion though; for me, one of the most beautiful games I've ever played is Muramasa: The Demon Blade which is a 480p game, purely because I adore its art style. For me, stuff like art design or textures or effects work generally rates higher than raw pixel count.

A person could very well prefer the way Xenoblade 3 looks to the way RDR looks, and that would be a valid choice.

I'm talking about a combination of graphics and art style. When it comes to 3d gaming with high detail very low resolution ruins the image.

As you said yourself just a few posts back:

An opinion can be wrong. If I said. In my opinion, the Earth is flat. That would be objectively wrong.

I mean is this even a opinion? when the resolution is so low the game loses so much detail and has a  vaseline filter. sure if you're playing it on a handheld its not that bad but on a 40 inch tv it looks horribel. If i show those pics to 100 humans i'm sure 100 will say red dead looks better now i'm just basing off this off the pics.

Which of the two looks better is absolutely an opinion. Just out of the few of us discussing it here in this thread, we have someone who says Xenoblade 3 looks better. It's likely many others out there feel the same way. Everybody perceives things differently.

Earlier in the thread you invoked your right to your own view in preferring RDR. The same applies to those that prefer Xenoblade 3.

Heh i don't this developer is really meh when it comes to making a great looking  open world games they go for massive scope over everything and everything suffers for it I think red dead, and BOTW does almost everything better graphically this doesn't have dynamic shadows which is so important in making a game like this to look good, the last thing DF said was meh  about it xenoblade 3  lol.

You literally can't use that excuse that it's subjective... Because I literally provided a list of objective technology.
And considering you have used Digital Foundry prior to justify your arguments, you don't get to ignore this, otherwise you are being a hypocrite.

Witcher 3 is very much technology driven for it's visuals and relies less on stylization/art... Thus destroying your "subjective" argument in it's entirety.

Mario Wonder and Mario Odyssey aren't my arguments.

Witcher 3, Doom and other more "technically advanced games" is literally my argument that is counter to yours.

Red Dead is not a "balance" as it's a last-generation remastered port and does NOT showcase the Switch's hardware in it's best possible light.

For example... Where is the Tessellation? The Switch features that in hardware, but the Red Dead Redemption port doesn't use that functional unit inside the Switch processor, meaning it doesn't use 100% of the Switch hardware capabilities... And performance and graphics is left on the table.

Witcher 3 is impressive because of the technology it's deploying to render it's more complex world and on a mobile OLED display that the Switch has... It looks absolutely stellar.

That is a lie... And that is the kind of rhetoric that some individuals use to justify the Earth is flat.
"Their opinion ain't wrong, ergo... Flat Earth."

The impact resolution has is very dependent on a multitude of factors.
1) Size of display.
2) Viewing distance from display.
3) Display quality. - I.E. Low contrast displays tend to hide resolution issues because everything is washed out.
4) Display type. - CRT's look good even a 1024x768, but an LCD at that resolution looks terrible.
For LCD... VA vs IPS vs OLED vs TN also impacts things.
5) Sub-pixel layout. - Can exhibit some additional artifacts on the image.
6) Reconstruction. - TAA, XESS, DLSS, FSR is making the resolution issue less important.

Not only that but... Resolution is only one aspect of the pie.
You can render a game at 1920x1080, the shadows in that game? Might only be 192x192 resolution, the light shaft might be 512x512 resolution and the texture maps might be 1024x1024. - Everything in a game world operates at a different resolution and framerate... And thus a game that has an output resolution of 1280x720 and it's assets rendered at a high resolution can and will look better than a game that outputs at 1920x1080 with low resolution assets.

Sorry to educate you on this, but someone had to do it.

But you said Digital Foundry is just an opinion?
So which is it, opinions are fact or fiction?