The problem with Sony and Microsoft is that far more than Nintendo they're caught far more with the graphic/engine quagmire of constant upgrades/refinement and the spiraling budgets as well as long development times reflect that.
Cutting edge graphics were always something that was chased within gaming, however when the hobby broke out into the mainstream with the sixth generation and then went HD with seventh, what had been a pricy but still practical aim of graphical improvement went into overdrive in a big way. That shift necessitated not only a general budget increase for individual titles but also strong investment in gaming engines and hardware in general which ended up creating a bit of a problem.
The term arms race has often been utilized to describe the technological competition between Playstation and Xbox. It's a relevant term because like its namesake, it only was driven by a desire to outdo the other entity, the sheer money and resources poured into it also meant that the subsequent technologies had to be utilized as much as possible to justify its overall cost. This has often meant style and occasional even performance were de-prioritized in favor of graphical sheen. Frames Per Second took a backseat to polygon count and with realism being the easiest aesthetic to demonstrate visual power, it became a go to technique to show off what new hardware could do.
All this was exacerbated by PC gaming becoming more intuitive and often stronger than consoles, thus even more effort was needed to make an Xbox Series console impressive or a Playstation system graphically worthwhile enough to buy. "Get there fastest with the mostest" still feels like a major technological philosophy with both companies despite the lack of long-term sustainability with such an approach, specifically the lack of risks one can take with such expensive hardware.
Nintendo obviously has subscribed far less to this idea, even going all the way back to the Game Boy being a less graphically impressive portable system that nonetheless still defeated its competition due to affordability and practical power performance. The Gamecube was the last significant attempt to compete graphically with the marketplace (even with the caveat of the more limited space of its discs) and the resulting third place finish conveyed to Nintendo that such efforts were ultimately a financial waste. Legacy of major IP's new ways of play and am emphasis on style to compensate for a lack of power have been their approach ever since and more often than not, it's worked.
That's not to say no Nintendo fans care about graphics or that there isn't a decent contingent of players that wished the company emphasized powerful hardware more, but a large portion of them have accepted that getting the Nintendo experience comes at the cost of inferior tech in comparison to the rest of the market. While there's nothing that can really justify the FPS hiccups in something like Xenoblade or the unimpressive attempts by TPC to make use of the Switch's specs for mainline Pokémon, most look at things like BotW, Smash, Mario Odyssey, or Mario Kart and conclude that's enough for them.
And at the end of the day, these are just useful generalities; fans of all the big four are much more nuanced than the online mudslinging would suggest.
-type character for UFO 50 in a Platform Fighter (with a moveset featuring elements from the 50 games featured), it won't be the little red Pilot guy.