Surprisingly for the most part, yes.

A good example for me was that it ran Black Myth Wukong at around 40fps.

Xbox would be the one to fall out. Mainly because Microsoft prioritizes software and service over major hardware gains. Their console is mostly a complementary device for users to access their services so this not necessarily a bad thing. With most of their games no longer exclusive this makes the most sense.

Overall Sony and Nintendo will face stiff competition from PC and it's handheld markets as they are the best value platforms albeit with a major upfront cost. Nintendo will remain popular enough due to its widely attractive exclusive games and it's the device that is perceived best for kids. Playstation will remain the go-to platform for people who want a quick plug and play platform and not deal with the "fuss" of PC. The PS5 Pro was their trial attempt at making something more powerful for that crowd.

Would still choose a Steam Deck over this anyway.

Wait till Sony turns into a live service game

Vita was fine. Sony just didn't support it and stuffed it up with propriety memory cards which caused low sales and a lot of big games for it to be cancelled. It also launched at a time where mobile games were becoming more mainstream and less people wanted dedicated handhelds. Although post-Switch, the handheld market has seen a bit of a boom especially with Steam Deck etc.

Brilliant

I think they'll be fine. They don't need to be the most powerful. Steam Deck is weaker than Rog Ally but remains the more popular option due to a better user experience and the Switch was significantly underpowered compared to the competition but remains a popular option to other things they bring to the table.

Microsoft won't push for an expensive handheld so anything they bring out would likely be weaker than the top end of the market. It really comes down to what other offerings they bring.

Yep pretty much. All games boil down to what you mentioned above but the execution can vastly differ. I guess the low end is the Ubisoft approach where everything is just a generic world and its go climb this tower/ capture this outpost etc and the high end is the Rockstar approach where it might be drive there, do this but things could be different in between that keeps it engaging. I guess it feels more like a living world.

I'm burnt out on open world games. Some are good with dense rich areas that are interesting and make you want to explore but most these days are just bland, overly large and filled with generic quests.

Games need to stop being open world for the stake of being open world. I think for a lot of games, having multiple open-ended areas can work much better.

When you're out of ideas so you go back to basics.

Steven Huffman be huffing something.

Goes for most of Reddit these days.