Is the pixel response time worse than Switch 1? Yes, but, how many among us really noticed it until it was pointed out through slow motion footage? Some folks are more susceptible to it under normal use than others, just as some are more susceptible to the flickering of OLED displays. Even the Switch OLED has an issue when it comes to vertical scrolling, which most won't see until the footage is slowed down. The problem we have here isn't that it exists. It's that the idea is engrained into people's minds, that now that they can see it outside of normal use, it will affect their enjoyment during normal use. It's throwing everything else under the bus, like how the screen is 1080p, can do HDR (however you may feel about that), is 120hz, has VRR via G-Sync, etc.
And for all we know, the reason the response time is bad is because it was chosen to be that way for the purpose of battery life. It could be that it isn't simply not using Overdrive, but that it's purposefully undervolted from normal voltage. Outside of changing batteries, the Switch 2 can run Mario Kart World with an average of 7.8W power consumption when portable, and that's pretty insane. Compare that to all these other portable PCs with large battery capacities, and still getting in the same realm of battery life. Steam Deck, for instance, pushes the APU to its 15W limit when the GPU is maxed out, insomuch that the CPU has to throttle down from the GPU getting priority over the juice.
If it is undervolted, then that's something that can be fixed with a FW update. They could make it an option in the settings. A toggle where folks can either keep it as-is, or supply it with a little more voltage at the expense of some battery life. How much? I dunno. Personally, even with this lower response time, I still find the screen much better than the Switch 1 screen.
