I would say gameplay and art style instead of what the rest of the industry calls graphics (polygon count basically).

Nearly all Nintendo (game freak is not technically Nintendo) games look beautiful thanks to having a great art style instead of just focusing on higher polygon count.

> what the rest of the industry calls graphics (polygon count basically)

IMO the focus of cutting edge triple-A graphics is physically based rendering.

“Physically based rendering” does not mean “photorealistic rendering.” After all, PBR was pioneered by Disney for use in their animated films. I would be surprised if Mario Odyssey doesn’t use PBR.

I agree with you, but in some newer games it just doesn't make sense to me.

They want good graphics but the Switch can't handle them, but they still try to make them.

For example, Pokemon Scarlet & Violet.

Gameplay and the game design for me personally is really great, but I can't stand the graphics. I would rather play on worse graphics just to not have constant frame drops and in some parts of the game N64 graphics and in some 4K ones.

Scarlet/Violet look atrocious even next to other Switch Pokemon games. The art direction wasn't great, and it was a really poor game technically.

https://www.eurogamer.net/digitalfoundry-2022-pokemon-scarle...

Can't find it right now, but someone did some side by side comparisons of Scarlet/Violet next to similar Breath of the Wild scenes, and it's night and day.

Neither generation of Switch Pokemon games looked or performed decent, but I guess bad performance is a gamefreak constant since at least the 3DS

I assume you're referring to Sword/Shield and Scarlet/Violet, but Legends: Arceus is also officially part of the main series. Offhand don't remember performance issues in that one.

Arceus is amazing. I never bothered to get Scarlet/Violet because to me they're a regression and just look like a lazy attempt at money grab.

Agree completely. I loved Tears and didn’t once think it looked bad in any way. It was a very clever game and made me feel like a kid again. That’s what I’m looking for in a Nintendo game. I’ll jump on my PS5 if I want to be wowed graphically.

Exactly. If you want to be dazzled with AAA titles running at 120Hz/60fps/4k then there are plenty of ways to spend your money. Frankly that segment of the industry feels like a treadmill of never ending upgrades for the same basic game.

My whole family shares and island in animal crossing, firing up some arcade brawlers on the couch. We’ve been playing the hell out of our switch for years and never once have we complained that it’s not flashy enough.

My main issue with the art style is that it's very flat, with large areas of a single, solid color, when more shading would add a sense of nuance and depth. A character's face, body, or hair will have a single light color, and a single dark color. This isn't about 4k, 120Hz, or huge polygon count, it's about basic shading to convey that things are 3d.

I've played mostly 20+ year old games for years, and don't own a gaming machine or high-end console. I'm into Doom from the 90s, OpenTTD, and Morrowind. But TotK should have been better, in my opinion. The art style just isn't my cup of tea.

BOTW and TOTK are clearly influenced by the look of Ghibli movies, especially Nausica and Laputa. I guess it’s meant to look “2d”.

Is sharing an island possible to do across multiple Switches?