This really depends on the tradeoffs someone might prefer a higher resolution vs better lighting. Red dead at 1080p would not be possible on wiiu, same for frame rate as well unless everything is equal then a advanced feature doesn't make it a better looking game it's subjective. Nice try though.

As for wiiu sure it was more modern but 360 ram was 2x faster and and had more shaders, I think wiiu GPU was slighty better but i think it could could have easily run BOTW and looked 95% the same with a better framerate, thanks to the cpu.

Frankly many of these advanced features don't even make a huge differnce sometimes. like in this video it's suppose to be massive step up in lighting technology  but i don't feel like you would be missing much with out it. l would take high resolution/frame rates all day based on what i'm seeing here.

The biggest factor for me in determining what I think are the best-looking games on Switch is whether seeing the game makes me wonder 'how is this even running on this hardware?' I know Prime remastered does that for many people, but it doesn't for me because I don't think the models and textures are pretty 7th-gen looking. Red Dead is similar because it's the same assets as the 2010 release. Crysis 3 is a game that always looked more like a PS4 game than a PS3 game, so to see it and the other 2 Crysis games look and run that good on a mobile chipset is still a wonder even with the knowledge that it ran, if barely, on the PS3 and 360.

Xenoblade 3 is the open-world game that does that for me. 2 looked great, but had a very low resolution, 1 Definitive Edition I actually found a little disappointing because I didn't think the Switch was capable of what I wanted from a full HD recreation of that world, so while it was a big improvement, I always wanted more from the 'Definitive Edition.' But 3 somehow blew me away with an even more beautiful world than ever, seemingly better everything, and it mostly solved the resolution issue with an impressive upsampling implementation that worked wonders. It's a game that I think would still look good on more powerful systems with things like the minor LOD issue smoothed out, and seems to me to be around the upper limit of what the Switch can do with an open world game.

Many of the 'impossible ports' have so many compromises that while it's impressive to see them running at all, they look like downgraded versions. Hogwarts Legacy, for instance, or Doom Eternal. But then there are games like Dragon Quest 11 or Nier Automata that at first glance look like their PS4 counterparts even if there are cuts when you look closer.

The WiiU -could- run Red Dead at 1080P.
Whatever the Switch can do, the WiiU can do, you just need to re-prioritize resources.
I.E. The WiiU's lack of bandwidth is a detriment to Alpha effects, cut those back and Red Dead's performance targets look far more appealing.

I also think you are confused here.

A video games "more advanced feature set" MUST take advantage of the hardware's more advanced feature set. The software cannot do it without the hardware and vice-versa, they work together. Remember that.

The WiiU's GPU on paper is technically worst than the Xbox 360's GPU.
But in the real world, the WiiU's GPU is fundamentally better.

Gflops doesn't tell the entire efficiency story, neither does DRAM bandwidth... Remember the eSRAM/eDRAM does actually help, which is why AMD threw in the infinity cache which drastically improved efficiency on Radeon GPU's even when they were at a bandwidth deficit verses the nVidia alternative.

As for the Xbox 360 running Breath of the Wild, keep in mind... The WiiU release of Breath of the Wild was already operating at 720P/30fps and it was suffering from performance drops. (I have the game on WiiU and Switch, so I am not talking out of my ass here.)

I think it's a bit of a stretch to assume the weaker Xbox 360 would run the game with 95% of the visual quality of the WiiU release when the game is built from the ground up to leverage a more modern architecture/feature set and still struggles at times.
That's not to say the Xbox 360 couldn't run it... You could run Skyrim on the original Xbox if you downgraded the assets enough... Just like I managed to run Oblivion (An Xbox 360 game) on Original Xbox class PC hardware. (Geforce 3 Ti, Pentium 3.)

There is literally a community that does "demakes" and will "demake" a game like Portal to run on something like the antiquated Nintendo 64 console.

So in short, you can downgrade any game to run on any hardware, to a point, but you do have to make concessions and compromises... However, I think I need to remind you that this discussion is about the best graphics on Nintendo Switch and not the Xbox 360 vs Switch comparison, I suggest you leave that for another thread.

They absolutely make a huge difference, just because you lack the fundamental understanding of their implications and how they relate to the rendering of a scene does not make them insignificant.

I would suggest equipping yourself with the full context of the discussion before jumping into the fray as it could avoid a lot of confusion and unnecessary back and forth and you feeling like you're being scolded.

As far as there being anything wrong with saying RDR looks better than Witcher 3, I don't think that's the problem here. I don't think people are saying you're wrong with your opinion as much as - hey, your opinion of what looks better isn't the purpose of this thread and you keep repeating it as if you're being told you're wrong - which is derailing the thread. I want to emphasize that word you used; looks. This thread isn't simply about looks. It isn't about a subjective aesthetic end result. it's about impressive technology towards an end goal, again using DF's collective works to define what they mean by "best graphics". You're totally within your right to say you find RDR to be the most impressive looking game to you in a different context, but maybe not in this thread because that's not what we're discussing here. Here we (and DF) are discussing how a game is utilizing the Switch's unique hardware capabilities in software towards an impressive result, or unique techniques that overcome shortcomings (ex. simplified voxels for characters and environments to push better shader effects and higher framerates in The Touryst). You can disagree and say the new tech isn't impressive, but you better be ready to explain why outside of just "Oh the end result doesn't look good to me". 

To make a bit of an analogy, you could have a car that looks incredible to you and performs pretty well on a track. But it might just be a very standard, traditional car built on the platform established from a car 8 years ago. And then you might have a new car that might not look as nice (to you), and might not go as fast around the track, but it is doing something new with tech (like using a new energy source, or a new type of suspension that makes it better for certain things like off-roading). For the people into technology the first car is great! But the second car is worth more in-depth discussion and praise. And if a bunch of other cars suddenly use that type of technology towards a similar end (i.e. a bunch of cars trying to become the best off-road vehicle), that's when discussion gets very interesting because now it's not just about the technology itself, but the proper application of it. 

That's kind of what DF (and those of us interested in these topics) are trying to do here. Not just saying "oh this looks best to me", but appreciating what's special about a bunch of these implementations on a technical level.

I explained myself plenty  of times it's just not about effects right. If game has better character models better textures. More detail per scene, and higher resolution it doesn't matter if a game uses a couple more advanced features. It's still uses the hardware to full capabilities. This is basic stuff its not my fault someone can't accept when they are wrong. 

crysis 3 for example ran on 360/ps3 dated hardware. Switch fixed the framerate issues, and image quality and it's one the best looking games  graphically on switch nothing wrong with saying that, and it will be on switch best graphics list when DF does a video.  keep in mind this is the guy that tells me ps3 exclusive  are techically more impressive is a fact which i went to beyond3d a board that actually the most advanced when it comes to tech descussion and the ones that have the most tech knowledge like the first person to actually look at the chipworks pic of wiiu and figure out it the right specs say it's GTAV by a huge margin.

They managed to get Hogwarts Legacy running on the Switch? Holy he'll that's a feat. I thought getting The Witcher 3 on it was mad but this is mind blowing. How are the loading times with the cart? They are atrocious on PS4 pro. Like a minute and a half. 

This brings us all back to the crux of how you define "looks better".  Most people would associate 'looking better' as simply having more realistic texture art and that's it.

As with any subjective and/or technical comparison, you have to lay out an agreed upon definition first.  

For one it has better textures, more detailed character models, and dynamic  shadows which is massive for a open world game like this. xenoblade shadows is static which makes the world look flat and boring. it also using 2d grass that doesn't react to the character model, but it's ok to use xenoblade but someone wants to get on my case for saying red dead cause someone's ego is hurt.

You said from pics.  You cannot discern that shadows are are static or grass isn't dynamic from pics.

Load times are pretty bad on Switch and are more frequent as well, though they don't seem to be as long as you say the PS4 Pro loading screens can be.