PS3 CPU was stronger on paper than the PS4, the PS4 ran games miles better than the PS3 and you never expected to see a PS3 game running better than it's PS4 counterpart. PS4 had much newer tech and tools than the PS3, and the Switch 2 also have newer tech and tools than the PS4.

Switch 2 can run open world games like Breath of the Wild at 60fps. It even as access to a form o DLSS.

Bethesda/MS simply didn't want to spend more time and money on a version they think should not sell too much to justify it.

It's completely on them.

I know PS4 ran games better than PS3, that's obvious. My point was, there is an aspect of the PS4 that was not 2x better than PS3 and that was it's CPU and that's why it didn't Skyrim was only 30fps just like the PS3. To have 60fps you'd need every aspect of the hardware to be 2x better than last gen consoles and Switch 2 is not, meaning that it's stuck at 30fps and there is nothing BGS's could've done about it to get it to 60. 

If you want to believe that Fromsoft/Gearbox and now BGS are all incompetent/lazy that's up to you but it's just disturbing to see that people would rather smear quality and highly respected devs over criticising nintendos hardware even though Nintendo has not made powerful and competitive hardware in decades. 

As if devs never clearly showed lack of care for ports of their games.

More specifically, as if Bethesda never showed lack of care for their games.

They literally relaunched games they knew had lots of bugs for a decade and never cared for fixing loads of them. Google Fallout 76 and go see how highly respected its launch was. Bethesda actually got a free pass for criticism for several years because people lacked their games, even as they were broken.

There is nothing that can justify the Switch 2 not being able to run Skyrim at 60fps, Switch 1 runs The Witcher 3, that's a native PS4 game, one of the games used the most as a showcase for years.

You are not talking about the Switch 2 having to be able to run a demanding native PS5 game at 60fps, Skyrim is from 2011 brother.

I know, and that's what makes this more concerning. There are reasons to justify it. PS4 level CPU and PS4 only runs it at 30. XBOne level of memory bandwidth and the XBOne only runs it at 30. This is not about effort it's about Switch 2's specs having more in common with last gen systems than next gen systems. 

Can't help but notice that you've completely ignored Zippy's reply that disproves what you've been saying. Even putting that aside people shouldn't need to explain to you why the Switch 2 should be able to run a 2011 game that ran ok on the 360 at 60fps. You should try to make your trolling attempts at least somewhat convincing.

I don't even know what NEX is. I doubt I should care about that, either lol

This isn't the 2011 version of the game though! It's the 2017 remastered version and it's more intensive on the hardware. If anyone is being a troll it's you for not acknowledging that. So we're all just going to come to the conclusion that BGS was being lazy then? Fine, But someone believing that hardware limitations is more responsible than laziness for there being only 30fps doesn't make them a troll.

First of all I literally replied to a post of yours where you said that the game being from 2011 is something that makes things more concerning so you're not even making a minimal effort at being consistent here. It being the 2017 remaster doesn't change the broad point at all either way though since the CPU's listed in the minimal requirements for the Special Edition are from 2009 and recommended ones from 2011/2012 and the Switch 2 CPU is obviously far above those. And yes that is the obvious conclusion if you had bothered to do any research on it since there's been major complaints about the port such as it having awful input lag.

It's not far above those though. That is factually incorrect. The PS3 CPU is much older than that but it is better than PS4 CPU, and because devs have said Switch 2 has similar power to PS4 CPU, we know that a CPU from mid 00's is better than Switch 2 CPU. I'm not trying to be argumentative or troll here, I just don't like smearing a well respected and successful developer as "lazy" when the platform has components inside that are weaker than what the PS3 had. 

I just don't want the "lazy developer" narrative to go uncontested here. I feel BGS deserved more respect than that. That's all. Having one person here on the other side of the argument is much better than having no-one. 

The Switch 2 is between PS4 and PS4 Pro power, but it had access to tech and tools the PS4 did not have, like DLSS.

Matter of fact, Switch 2 is running Red Dead Redemption at 60fps, like the PS4 Pro version.

I'm not expecting unreasonable performance on Switch 2, the dev just needs to use the tools they have to make it happen, and if they don't want to do that... well, that's definitely on them.

Switch 2 is not a PS5, that's not what it needs to be to deliver that.