This is an interview with Peter Hines which touches upon the subject of Nintendo's rumoured hybrid console. He says within the interview that the reason why the company hasn't released their games on recent Nintendo consoles, is purely because of hardware limitations, and not Nintendo's audience.

Would players of these games sacrifice graphical quality in order to take these games on the go. I personally don't think so, especially if things stay the same with Nintendo's achievement system, which can play a significant role in these types of games.

I wonder if the prospect of portability is enough to tip gamers decisions on this.

GC: Now, Nintendo is not a subject I ever imagined talking to you about. But there was a very interesting quote recently about you talking to them all the time. But I can’t imagine what about?

PH: [laughs] We talk to them about games! We talk to them about what they’re up to!

GC: I’m glad to hear it, I’m just surprised.

PH: It’s not like we’ve never done anything on Nintendo. We haven’t done anything on Nintendo in a very long time, but we did some Star Trek stuff back in the day. Star Trek: Tactical Assault or something. Look, our philosophy is we want to make our games, as they’re designed and built, available on as many platforms as possible. And so Nintendo, as a maker of a platform, you want to constantly be in touch with them, to see what they’re doing, where they’re headed, and whether or not there might be some opportunities down the line, with where they’re going.

GC: Third party support is a constant problem for them, but I think it’s questionable whether people would even buy things like Battlefield or GTA if they were on a Nintendo console. Is the reason you haven’t supported them much in the past partly because you don’t think your games would sell to that audience?

PH: No, no. it’s usually been one of a technical… hardware issue. It’s just, what it is that the devs are making and what are the hardware requirements that they’re looking at, to support what they’re making? And what fits? And anything that is below the line is, ‘Well, we can make it work, but we’d have to cut this or that or do it like…’ But no, that’s not the point. The point is to take the game, as you designed it, and to get it working on those platforms. Not make a bunch of cuts and a bunch of changes and bring out some other version of it.

GC: So if NX is announced in the next few weeks and is as powerful as an Xbox One or higher, then…

PH: Then it will absolutely be something that we consider. Okay… let’s say they come out and say tomorrow it does X, Y, and Z. Well, Dishonored 2 is way down the road, it’s not in the conversation. But anything that is in development, I think we’d take a look at and see if technically does it line up with what they’re doing?

And then to your point, of course we always want to look at what we’re doing from an audience standpoint. But I think that we have any number of things that might appeal to the Nintendo audience. Maybe it’s not as appealing as Super Smash Bros., or it doesn’t appeal to that exact same audience, but that doesn’t mean that there’s not still an audience there.

GC: Do you know what the NX is?

PH: We talk all the time to everybody, about what they’re up to.

GC: [laughs] You can say whether you’ve seen it can’t you? Just as long as you don’t actually tell me anything.

PH: [poker face] …

GC: Boy, I bet those Nintendo NDAs are something else.

PH: [laughs]

Source Metro.co.uk

Like it says in the interview, Bethesda aren't going to drastically alter versions of their games to work on one platform. People could say that they did do this with console versions of Fallout 4 but that was just graphics/performance. The actual content in those games and the PC version is identical.

So I think your question is a theoretical one: Would you take an inferior version of a Bethesda game if it was portable? My answer is no. Those games on a small screen would be horrible. Those games are always full screen, long play session propositions to me. Achievements aren't a factor for me in choosing which platform to play games.

Overall this question is premature though. We still don't know what the NX is. If you could just take it to a friends house and plug into into their TV and get an experience on par with other consoles then that's great. If it's something to play while on the move then I wouldn't want to play a Bethesda game that way.

Hmm, could not help but think about Zelda after reading your second paragraph. I think its safe to say BotW art style will look great on the long rumoured 720p/6.2inch screen, and that many will be excited by the prospect of being able to take it portable, so why not Skyrim, would its art look bad at that resolution?.

I expect we will see 4k versions on PS and XB's new consoles, and that may well be enough for graphfickle junkies to decide where to put their money.

I think I would prefer to play the next iterations on either of the other two consoles, while Breath of the Wild may be able to get away with it in its mobile form, I doubt other similar games will also. Comfort over longplay is vital for Nintendo to have a chance. I have haven't liked any 3DS design, in fact that's an understatement. Nintendo seems to design their handhelds for people with small hands.

Just to clarify, despite the claims that they are doing "4k gaming", they are unlikely to render games in that resolution with the hardware suspected to be inside Neo and Scorpio (it's not carrying anything of of the equivalent to Nvidia's Titan, 980ti or 1080 because if it did it would be insanely expensive) but it'll most likely use an upscaling technique but even then, people have mentioned that upscaling it to 4K isn't as simple as it sounds. Also its not an issue of whether the art is going to look good or bad, its whether it'd be capable of rendering the game with the amount of stuff that is happening in the open world. BotW by comparison doesn't have a lot of stuff that could possibly all happen at once despite its open world design.