In a literal sense, I can't exactly say that's wrong, but I can't help but feel that they could have done a much better job optimizing the game, despite it being on the Switch. This is especially considering the existing benchmark of HW: DE running at least at double the framerate, a much higher resolution, and with less pop-in. It's not as though I'd argue every aspect of the game is ruined by the poor performance, but an action game should never get to the point where a single digit framerate becomes a normality during basic play, and I don't think it's entirely fair to point to the Switch's hardware as being the sole culprit. HW: DE runs better in every way, with comparable enemy counts and asset quality to AoC, and at a much higher resolution. OCing the Switch's GPU does help the framerate a lot, but it still never hits a constant 30 in battle for more than half a second, and I honestly can't point to any particular graphical aspect that would justify such a GPU-heavy game. It's especially disappointing when it drops frames so hard, considering the input latency spikes as the framerate chugs, and it can often ruin the timing-based challenges the game uses (flurry rushes and parries) and even when the framerate is as "steady" as it can get, it's still dropping frames off 30 left and right.
For context, I'd say Breath of the Wild was limited to 30fps to achieve wide sweeping shots which loaded in many distant assets, and I think it's safe to say that it was necessary to achieve the type of "search and explore" gameplay the title was going for, while still being on the Switch. To me, that kind of sacrifice isn't ideal, but I understand how it directly serves other aspects of the gameplay. AoC, though? I can't really see anything that justifies the poor performance, and the fact that the core gameplay has to suffer so much is a detriment to the many positive aspects of the game's design.
Source
