But that's just it, a game using old techniques at a higher resolution or framerate isn't necessarily using the hardware to full capabilities. Suggesting so demonstrates your lack of knowledge on the subject and I think that's why people are frustrated with your posts. You're repeating yourself without understanding that your conclusion is incorrect. And then you go a step further saying other people don't understand. 

Let me explain with an analogy again where you're misunderstanding and mis-stating things. Let's consider the Xbox 360 a traditional gas powered car and the Switch a hybrid that mixes gas (old techniques) and electric capabilities (new techniques). In other words, the Switch has new hardware features/capabilities.

• Something more specifically made for the Switch would be using both the gas engine and the batteries at once to interesting outcomes. It may not hit both the gas engine and the batteries for 100% of what they're worth all the time or at the same times, but that mix can lead to more interesting and "greater" results (the definition of greater is subjective).
• Something ported from Xbox 360 is likely just pegging the Switch's gas engine as hard as it can go because that's all it was built to do. To me that doesn't count as using the hardware to its full capabilities because that electric motor and those batteries are just sitting there doing nothing.

The Switch has hardware capabilities that can be utilized through software that are either not being utilized either at all or not being used to their full capabilities for older ported games. They're not using the full capabilities of the Switch. 

WOW, I wasn't expecting it to look THAT bad. Looks atrociously bad. They shouldn't have bothered with it, part of the game is enjoying the world. That'd really hurt the games enjoyment. And ouch, you have to load into buildings. Oof. 

Could be worse.  Could be Arkham Knight.

The only one frustrated is permalite, and what does it matter if the final results are superb, and among the best looking games on switch. let's use a example crysis 3, if the the 360 port of the game was 60fps/900p that would not be using switch capablites? it would by far switch's techically most impressive game, same for rdr 1080p/60fps i think we should worry more about the final results then say's it's using poor man's GI that most people won't even notice.

"What does it matter if the final results are superb?", "Let's use a example crysis 3, if the 360 port of the game was 60fps/900p that would not be using Switch capabilities?"

My last 2 posts have explained things in a way that you could come to the answers for these questions yourself.

The first question could be answered by my first post. To summarize "It matters because the final result is not the be all and end all of what we're talking about here. If you want to talk about what looks best [to you] then you're welcome to create another thread about it." If you want more detail for what we're actually talking about here, go read my first response to you again.

The second question was answered by my second post. But I'll add some more nuance to the answer to help guide you. The answer is, it depends on how they port it. Are they replacing the implementation of certain features to make better use the Switch's hardware capabilities? If so, yes the port would be making use of the Switch capabilities. If they just do a basic port and things that Switch hardware could be doing are still being done using old implementation, then no - it's not making the most of the Switch hardware because it's doing things less efficiently than it could be. So although it might be using 100% of the processing capabilities of the switch, it could actually be doing the same thing while using less than 100% of the hardware's capabilities if they changed how they're doing things. And then those extra processing cycles that are freed up can be used towards something else, leading to an even BETTER result. 

Elden Ring is not more impressive than RDR on PS3. Elden Ring can run on PS1! See Proof!

No flaws in my logic!

Ok explain to me why xenoblade 3 being mentioned? it even lacks features that were basic during the 360 era, like dynamic shadows and for a open world game that's one of the most important graphical feature, and it just looks like crap over all, and most likely when DF makes best looking thirdparty games they might mention RDR and crysis 3 then what. RDR looks a switch game while xenoblade 3 looks like a early ps3 game. 

Switch's advanced graphical features could come at cost, like lower resolution, less stable framerate so there are tade offs. again BOTW is on wiiu its not using switch's advanced feature set , so does that not count as well? how about mario rpg which looks like a small indi game. What about mario wonder, it's not using those advanced graphical features but still mentioned why aren't you not questioning why DF mentioned it. like i said it's all bout someone not accepting being wrong,

I'll sum it up for me.  I've lived in New Mexico.  Twice.  Why would I want to play a game that looked like my own back yard?  Xeno3 looked like a place of wonder to explore, get lost in and find amazing creatures and places.  RDR2 looks old, boring, bland, brown and gray.

See what I did there?  That subjectivity is going to always going to come back.

RDR is way more detailed, better character models, better animations, better lighting, better image quality, better textures, runs better doesn't have grass pop every few steps you walk, and better physics. the horses alone are still better looking and animated then every other game except RDR 2. what about vaseline filter on screen right, but it uses advanced features, who cares about final results..... ok

Bravely Default II doesn't get its due. On UE4. The game looks incredible on Switch in stills but even better in motion. Esp in the desert where the sand moving in the wind has a very real-looking effect. Nice textures and even ok lighting effects.