I feel like I've been unclear. Maybe engaging with the idea of PC performance, which is inherently variable, obfuscated what I am saying.
The Nintendo Switch is a discrete platform, so as far as I am aware performance will largely be the same between multiple devices. A reviewer's experience with the technical performance of a game should be largely reflective of anyone's. You bringing up a random event as though it's what I'm saying really confuses me and honestly hurts my feelings a little bit. What did I say that made you think this was comparable to what I was saying? When was I so unreasonable?
Hey, sorry for making you feel like your comment was unreasonable. Honestly I replied with "iunno" because you made a good point, and I didn't know how to respond. I should have been more clear about that though.
You bring up a good point that the platform of the game is invariable, since XC3 is exclusive to the Nintendo Switch and therefore its performance is going to be the same across all reviewers.
However that didn't compute for me at first, because in my mind,
no game is inherently tied to its platform. In the future when the game is running on a more powerful Switch despite the software of the game being untouched, none of those issues that may have plagued it upon its initial release will be a factor. And in my opinion, the game shouldn't be reviewed differently for that.
The contents of the game are still the same, and that's what I want to see being reviewed when I read a review.
Besides, it's all a matter of framing. For example, one reviewer could give the game a 7/10 due to the aliasing and the framedrops during action-heavy sequences, citing the aging Switch as bringing down the overall experience. But another reviewer could give it a 10/10, citing the mostly-even framerate and vast improvement over XC2's graphics
despite its platforms limitations as a reason for the high rating.
All in all, if you believe a reviewer should be reviewing the
contents of the game, agnostic of experience on its platform, you might agree with me. However if you believe a reviewer should be reviewing the
experience of playing the game (in my opinion, a much more subjective experience), then I understand why you'd disagree with me.
Edit: to make my opinion clearer, I didn't think the scene transition slowdown problem in Link's Awakening should have factored into game reviews outside of performance-based analyses by the likes of Digital Foundry. This is because I want to read reviews about the
contents of the game that the creators intentionally included into the game - level design, art style, combat system, rewards systems, amount of content, etc.
Otherwise, if the only difference between a review of the same game on two different platforms is the performance, aren't you really just reviewing the platform?