Honestly bewildering why there is such a lowered benchmark of expectations here (graphically) just because it's a Nintendo Switch game. It's always good if a game's performance is technically smooth, but the way this person is describing the graphics is weirdly hyperbolic as if we're pretending to be in 2006: "fury green is centered around a towering tree stretching towards the heavens with gorgeous ruins of alien architecture offset by lush plant life and flowing water". Like come on, anyone with eyes can see it looks like a Gamecube game with an HD update. This is a direct sequel priced at $70, meanwhile MS got criticism (rightfully so) for Gamepass prices even after sheer volume of games on there. The Switch 2 is capable of running games like Hogwarts legacy so it's not a capability issue.

It's also kind of unfair to other games. Imagine Insomniac's Spiderman 2 decided to look like the PS2 Spiderman 2 for nostalgia, surely it wouldn't get a pass.

That being said, I'm sure it's a great game gameplay-wise and the art-style looks very classy.