So "what your print looks like" does not depend on sensor size, or if the used lens is a symmetrical design or retrofocus. There were lengthy discussions about this in other threads. Good to have that sorted out.
I don't want to complicate things. But I would like to add:
The projection method of your photographic system has an influence on "what your print looks like" too . With photographic system I mean lens, sensor & software correction. A fisheye lens will look different from a lens with rectilinear projection. And a lens the has for example some barrel distortion will look slightly different than a lens with perfect rectilinear projection. But by using software correction you can transform it to have perfect rectilinear projection. And then both look identical again.
An example: I took a photo of a church facade with a lens that is corrected to rectilinear projection in software using a profile. It's the GF 30mm TS with 15mm of shift, so a very wide lens with a lot of shift.
Image with perfect rectilinear projection, crop of the figure on the top of the church:
View attachment 209604
Image with added barrel distortion, crop of the figure on the top of the church:
View attachment 209605
The second one looks better, doesn't it? Less stretched. So is the second lens better? No, it's not. It's the same image from the same lens and sensor, just with software transformation. So it's a different projection method that is used. And it is not one you would want to use for a photograph of architecture. This part of the image may look "more natural". But if you look at the full image – it's awful, because of all the barrel distortion ;-)
Image with perfect rectilinear projection, full image:
View attachment 209606
Now the one with barrel distortion (I left the edges visible so you can see the amount of software transformation I used):
View attachment 209607
This church has eaten too much and has gone fat ;-)
I think these slight differences that people perceive may lead to the idea that a certain lens or sensor size is somehow better than another with regard to distortion.
The question of image quality is a completely different one though...