Well, he's not wrong when it comes to the framerate issues. It runs really shitty in places. But a lot of the time it does run at 60fps. Basically, it has the kind of framerate problems that makes a person want to upgrade their PC. I do wish this was a PC game.
Launch titles are virtually never the most technically impressive games on any system. Most of the time, they're pretty forgettable in terms of game design as well. Game studios probably get official devkits about 12-18 months before a new system launches (if even that long), which is a pretty compressed development schedule. I've seen more than a few people say that Breath of the Wild is already pushing the Switch to its limits. I suppose that is technically true, as there are some framerate issues. But it's not true in any meaningful sense; you very rarely see games that really push a system's capabilities until later in its lifecycle when programmers have had time to learn the intricacies of developing for that hardware.
The biggest danger is the same thing that afflicted the Wii and the Wii U: third-party developers who take the shortcut of porting the last-gen versions of their games instead of developing a version specifically for the Switch. I remember when I worked at EA (holy crap, that was 10 years ago), most of the Wii games were developed by the same division that did the PSP games. On any multiplatform titles, the PS3 and Xbox 360 shared art assets. The Wii got stuck sharing art assets with the PSP, despite the fact that it was significantly more capable.
On the plus side, Nintendo has a much stronger vision for the Switch that they did for the Wii U. Nintendo marketed the Wii U's second-screen gaming with the focus on asymmetric multiplayer, which extremely few games other than Nintendoland actually used. Most games that did use the second screen just used it for a map or inventory as did many games on the DS and 3DS. However, it wasn't really a good fit for playing on the TV, as you can't look at both screens at once like you can on the portables. Off-screen play was mentioned, but never received too much focus (but it was actually the most appealing feature for me). It worked okay, but there were three major drawbacks: crappy battery life (you could order a higher capacity battery from Nintendo), very limited range to the base unit, and the dull, low-resolution screen on the Gamepad. I liked the Wii U and it has a number of great games, but it didn't have a strong hook the way the Wii and DS did (and now the Switch). The Wii U seemed a bit like Nintendo throwing a bone to the core gamer audience after losing many of them with the Wii.
I figure it will take a couple of years for Nintendo to fully merge its home console and portable development teams; the 3DS still has life in it, and the Switch is currently way too expensive to replace it as a kids' portable system. It may not really bear fruit until the next generation of hardware; I think Nintendo is playing the long game here. The Switch is the first step towards unifying their development behind one platform (which will quite likely take the form of 2 or 3 different game systems, all of which run the same software).
