Yeah the stiffness and slowness of Monster Hunter is a deliberate design choice. It's not for everyone, but I personally love it, it makes combat feel weighty and risky and really makes it feel like I'm a guy wearing 100kg of scale armour swinging a sword that weighs another 50kg.

Yeah I can see Elden Ring or maybe Baldur's Gate 3 being for the successor what Skyrim was for the Switch, that headline 3rd party game early on that Nintendo promotes to show "look, we've got that game you love, but now it's portable!"

Square-Enix still has some catchet with Nintendo, even when they ported the almost 25 year old Final Fantasy VII (the 1997 game) to Nintendo platforms (finally) Nintendo featured it in a TV spot for the Nintendo Switch. So they probably will get a marketing push direct from Nintendo if they opt to go all in on Switch 2 with FF/KH games (Dragon Quest is already a lock) too. But yeah Elden Ring and maybe even Baldur's Gate 3 might be early Switch 2 software, at least there is probably no new Zelda game. 

Souls is my 2nd favorite franchise and I did not like Elden. Very redundant and boring. Worse game in the series.
I'm fully aware my opinion makes me the odd person out.

I guess any number can be considered either good or bad depending on whether you want the outlook to be positive or not 

The Witcher probably sold what, 5% of its total sales on Switch? What about Hogwats Legacy? 8%?

Both results can be considered acceptable because the games in question are massive success to begin with, so any additional copy is pure profit at this point

The case of Final Fantasy is much more severe. It's a franchise that is having problem to sell even as low as 4 million copies. If anything Switch can bring is a pitiful 300-400k extra copies (which is precisely how much I think it will bring) the IP will still having problems surviving. Maybe enough to break even port costs, hardly enough to help the IP make profits 

I believe the wrong way of thinking about current FF situation presumes FF flopping is a Sony/Playstation problem rather than a Square problem. Playstation userbade has been stable and JRPGs still selling the best there. I'll go as far and say FF XVI was saved by Sony timed exclusivity to cover development costs

The debate about FF going multiplat is strange because it presumes FF fandom don't buy Playstation hardware to play FF. The absolute majority of people who wants to play FF will buy a Playstation, it has been the case for the last 20 years

I'm not saying Square is wrong for doing multiplat releases. Being multiplat is a good thing to build a new fandom, since FF fandom is aging

But Every JRPG that experience fandom growth in popularity starts selling better first at Playstation and just then get multiplatform treatment. If the franchise is not growing on PS5 why would it suddenly start growing elsewhere?

I enjoy and have played every FF since IV.  I moved from console to PC.  Perhaps I'm an outlier but I'm waiting for PC releases.  I'm happy to support when Square is willing.

The are a dozen build setups to make the combat much faster paced and leaner in DS3 and ER. Bloodborne is specifically fast paced

Souls being janky by design is something from DS 1 and 2

Agreed. I really loved bloodborne, siekero and elden ring and tried monster hunter world I tried for 1 hour and it felt like shit, and the graphics looked really ugly as well.

The series has gotten faster.  I've beaten each of the souls games at least 8 times.  And while souls 3 is faster it still isn't GoW or Bayo.  It isn't intended to be an action game.  

Personally I find Monster and Souls similar in combat.  

Either way both series are excellent.

Monster Hunter has deliberate recovery windows, longer wind ups and you can't cancel out of the majority of animations. These are by design.

It shares some of these design choices with Souls but Monster Hunter is an action game with RPG elements and a comparatively more complex battle system than any Souls/Bloodborne/Etc game. On other hand, Souls games have to account for level design and the RPG aspect so it can't fine tune everything for everyone, so it makes sense.

That said, I wouldn't call the combat in either fast paced, Bloodborne included, unless we are completely excluding action games.