I feel like it's less that the port is "bad" and more just that the base game was less technically polished than the likes of RE Requiem or Pragmata or Star wars Outlaws in the first place, so the technical foibles that were already there on PS5 are magnified on Switch 2.

Which is odd, because i was shocked at how well it ran on PC.  Locked 120 fps, max settings.  I was expecting issues, but it was flawless.

And as for the stuff that was removed (not directed at you, just didn't want to post twice) because the game file is 100 gb, seems absurd to me.  Removing a few textures and apples from the table isn't going to account for 33% reduction in the OG file size (150 gb down to 100 gb).  Not when the game is 70+ hours with a stupid amount of content.  Things where removed because of cpu issues.  Especially the volumetric and particle effects.

This game is basically what I expected.  Rebirth is ambitious.  The S2 can run it, but clearly struggles.  Many areas hitting the low 20s, lots of pop in and lower resolution.  But to be fair, the game is high end and it does play.  

Just personal opinion from here.  

It's worth noting that this isn't the final release; Remake saw some improvement between its Switch 2 demo and the final product, so there could be improvement here too by the time the full game hits in June.

I wouldn't compare it to the Capcom stuff because Rebirth is essentially open world. Compared to Ubi's stuff I think a lot of it just reflects the fact that the base PS5 game was never that technically sound anyway and based off UE4... but still this port was probably a wee bit rushed too. Telltale sign is the crowd shots which drop the fps into the mid 20s, there's simply no reason for those crowds to be that dense on Switch 2 (not like those characters play meaningful roles). I think a fully optimised port would have reduced those things further.

I played it originally on quallity mode on PS5. Normally totally fine with 30fps but I agree its definitely one of the worser modern examples of it. The camera needed some camera motion blur and potentially there is actual an issue with the camera/it's programming which was making the 30 feel even more stuttery then it should do... But the game as a whole had tones of bad textures, low polymodels, poorly lit interiors etc. When it's gorgeous it's a 9/10, when it's ugly it looks like a mid-gen PS4 release. 

I still haven't tried it for myself but based on the PS5 output this S2 looks like a pretty sound outcome at a glance.

I think max settings doesn't really scale much beyond PS5. It seems the main problem with the PS5 version was the image quality which seemed to be an issue with upscalling (I imagine you used DLSS or FS2/3?). Performance wise I think it just struggled in combat when alpha effects were filling the screen (GPU). A lot of it's tech issues like pop-in/poor textures/bad animations/poor lighting are also in the PC version. It's not necessarily a bad performer

For sure.  I could see the fps being improved.  I don't see the other cutbacks being remedied, and not sure they need to be.  The game runs, it is playable.  I still think the S2 is about 20-30% more powerful than I expected, nice kit.     

I think my expectations for Rebirth were low, but FF16 run god awful.  Christ I couldn't get my 4090 to hit 120 fps at 1440p.  So I expected Rebirth issues and was pleasantly surprised when my rig killed it with ease, even when I doubled NPCs in Kalm, 120 fps locked.  

Edit

and yes, the biggest advantage the S2 has is upscaling.  The ps5 and xbox are garbage at upscaling.  Sony and MS were shortsighted on this element.  

91 GB for a demo

To put things in perspective, here is the Series S version:

Even here, on hardware with more raw juice than Switch 2, the compromises are very evident

To be fair, the Series S has a 60-fps mode that is close to locked.  And the 30-fps mode seems rock solid.  Kind of similar to Pragmata and RE9, the S2 puts out a similar picture quality, but the Series S has a clear advantage in fps.