I'm usually not an FPS snob, but it's hard to get used to lower frame rate when you become accustomed to how a game moves/plays. This is my issue with Doom and NBA 2K. Yes, it's a great accomplishment to get them running on what is effectively a tablet, but that doesn't mean it can't dissuade someone from spending $60 on what is effectively a worse version of a year old game.
I'm going to note right now that I'm not calling you out as I can appreciate where you're coming from, but I just sort of wanted to springboard off of this post into a broader observation. I sort of feel like there's a controversy here where there doesn't need to be one. I feel like there's two sides squaring off right now in terms of those that see Switch as capable of going toe-to-toe with the other major platforms and deserving of all major third party releases and those that -- not persuaded by the portability of the system and seeing that as more of a gimmick than a selling point -- are eager to point out how underpowered it is.
My reaction was much more subdued. I wholeheartedly welcome ports like these and think they are certainly worthwhile experiments. I'm a fan of the Switch. For a title like Doom (assuming it came out day one with other releases) I don't think Switch would be my first choice, but I think it's a cool option for potential double-dipping or maybe even just down-the-road "I never played this game, it's on sale and I'm going to be traveling" situations. I hope that there's a market out there that is willing to accept technical compromises for the portability tradeoff just so that we see more options. But at the same time, I noticed several observations last week that seemed to think that by making this move, Bethesda has officially thrown down some sort of gauntlet and marked a sea change for the Switch. "No more excuses other developers! If Doom 2016 can run on this don't tell me your game can't run on the Switch!"
Personally, this seemed to kind of misunderstand the situation. With impressions today, a lot of industry critics seem to be signing off on this as "good enough." Which is great. But stuff like 30 FPS vs. 60 FPS is a stark enough difference to give pause and not make this
automatically worthwhile. Another question for several generations on Nintendo hardware has just been "is there even a market for a title like this?" And I think that question is still valid until we see some sales data.
Basically, I think the question of "is porting something like Doom to Switch a worthwhile endeavor?" remains unanswered. People invested on either side seem eager to claim a victory here, but I personally think it's pretty unclear in the broad sense. If nothing else, I think it's reassuring that something like this can produce respectable performance.