C'mon, let's not get hyperbolic, Splatoon Raiders may be technically conservative but it does not look like a PS3/360 game. Games on those systems do not hold up anywhere near as well as people seem to think, low res textures, jaggies, screen tearing, and plastic/clay-like materials were the norm, and this is coming from someone who loves that gen.

I agree with Splatoon Raiders, it's indeed PS4/Xbone tier. Can't say the same about Yoshi, this one is very PS360.

Thanks for the kind words about my text.

I only played Bananza, the game managed to catch my attention and I experienced it.

I tried it on a family member's Switch 2, and it was the only game that caught my interest—and even then...

It’s very easy and repetitive.

The whole mechanic of destroying or interacting with objects gets stale after a few hours.

The platforming is quite limited; only the "dungeons" offer even a minimal challenge. The bosses are a joke—the game really should have had a "Hard mode."

I hope I don't sound arrogant, but the game really feels like it was made for a more casual or younger audience.

What about the other games? They don't even manage to pique my curiosity or interest—something a good game ought to do! With, maybe, the exception of Pokopia, it all looks mediocre..

They all fail to build hype or make me want to open my wallet. As I said before, the gameplay and reviews give me the impression of "B-tier" and low-quality spinoffs. I definitely don't plan on playing them or buying a Switch 2 in its current state.

I hope I'm being respectful with my opinion, and I honestly believe Nintendo will deliver in time... With Zelda, Mário, Smash, Fire Emblem, a "new IP" and, maybe with miracle, GameFreak will make a good Pokemon game. 

It's fine if you're not interested in the Switch 2 library. No one's forcing you to play it. But you really shouldn't speak with such authority and confidence about something when you have almost zero firsthand knowledge of it.

There's a use case for both. Super Mario 64 runs faster than Ocarina of Time, but the tradeoff was far simpler graphics and a smaller scope. Ocarina of Time, meanwhile, did have a much larger scope and much more detailed graphics. Having, simple, chunky polygon models in exchange for faster performance would have made it look like Mega Man 64, and would not have done justice to what Nintendo was trying to accomplish. A bump in framerate in exchange for a low-res world would not have improved the experience in OoT or Majora's Mask.

Super Mario 64 was built to hum along at a fast pace. Ocarina of Time was built to present a grand adventure with as much detail as they could wring out of the hardware they had. Super Mario 64 needed performance more. Ocarina of Time needed graphical fidelity more.

If I'm playing a fighting game, I'm going to opt for performance because higher framerates are a clear benefit there, but if performance mode makes the game look like complete ass, I'm not going to be interested. 

If I'm playing an adventure or a RPG, 60FPS is nice, but not a must-have, while graphical fidelity is going to be more important, as long as the game steady otherwise.

I think I understand your argument, and to a certain extent, I agree.

Before actually playing a game, I can't really make individual assessments, gauge the subjective value of the experience, or assign a score to it—but that’s not what I’m doing here.

What I am doing is analyzing user impressions, reviews, market impact, sales figures, the weight of the franchise, and so on.

For example:

Objectively: Assuming the game meets the expectations placed upon it, I don't need to play GTA VI to say, without a shadow of a doubt, that it will have a greater market impact than any Switch 2 title (in 2025 and 2026).

Having GTA VI greatly enriches the PS5 and Series X/S game lineup.

Subjectively: After playing both games, I might think GTA VI is cr@$$ and conclude that Tomodachi Life: Living the Dream is a better, more impactful game for me personally, I can even name it my GOTY.

Do you see what I mean?

I’m not expressing a purely subjective opinion; I’m analyzing various factors, and my conclusion—aiming for as much objectivity as possible—is that the Switch 2, as of now, has a very weak game lineup compared to its rivals.

I might be wrong—perhaps my subjective impression and bias are clouding my judgment—but... right now, I am convinced that is not the case.

Edit.

...to enrich the discussion and try to make my point clearer.

Subjectively: I love Vanillaware games like Dragon's Crown, Unicorn Overlord, Muramasa, and Odin Sphere... To me, they are fantastic—must-have!

Objectively: They are far from moving the needle! They haven't made the game lineups for their consoles substantially stronger.

Spiderman 2 on PS5 graphics mode is stunning and every surface having RT and locked 30fps.

It really depends on the game. So for example games like spiderman series on PS5 does not need 60fps. 60fps there is a nice touch but no needed. .might as well enjoy the games full graphics mode. Doesn't require fast twitch like reaction.

Games like souls like , fps like cod , sports game like fifa and racing games like forza the 60fps mode would be ideal. Cause they require twitch like reaction to succeed..

OMG Mega Man 2 is literarily unplayable because of the dips to single digit FPS in for example Metal Mans stage; said no one.

OMG F-zero 99 is literarily unplayable because of the dated graphics; said also no one.

Today’s obsession with FPS is ridiculous IMO, but still, I would rate performance over graphical fidelity. But, while it depends on the game, acceptable FPS in most cases is anything above 20 fps. I’m most sensitive in to low FPS in shoot ’em ups, preferably 60 fps (or 50 fps for PAL) but even here slowdowns, when the screen is filled, isn’t the end of the world (more important in this genre than FPS games in my opinion).

But sacrificing performance (to a certain degree) for good game mechanics and good enemy AI is a no brainer.

Actually wasting performance on just pushing pixel count, like 4K, is just a waste.

For the growth of the industry graphics. But well optimized games can look amazing while performing very well, like Witcher 3.

I will choose performance mode if the option presents itself. If i am playing on a platform incapable of such choice, then so be it. I tend to play on my SX but i will also choose to play the cloud version of a game, which as everyone knows, uses the SS codebase. And in many cases that version is not offered a performance choice. Why MS still have yet to upgrade their blades with X tech instead of S is anyones guess. But given the costs of various components, i can see them sticking to the lesser for a while longer.