Eh? It absolutely did not do that thing.

So first of all, if you like D&D 3.x or Pathfinder 1e, I'm glad! It's a fun system. I have many great memories of amazing campaigns in that system, and I think it's most important that you play the game you like. But I've been hearing this "video game" thing for half a decade now, which means I've got a whole big rant prepared. I'm...I'm sorry.

Ok. So. Yes, 5e filed off all of the stuff that was interesting, the big numbers that make people feel powerful, the stuff that made characters unique, etc. in its pursuit of making D&D like a video game. But Pathfinder went the opposite direction.

• You can make 238,140 mechanically distinct level two characters based on ancestry, class, and archetype alone (that's not a random guess, I did the math); and while they won't all have the same power level, they will all likely be able to contribute meaningfully. And that's not even counting all the class-specific choices and options, or the other feats you could take. Paizo is six years into PF2e right now, and even though they had to waste a bunch of time dealing with WotC's OGL nonsense, they're up to nearly a quarter million different combinations; but 3.x didn't get anywhere near that level of meaningful customization until Pathfinder debuted archetypes in the APG in 2010---a full decade after 3.0 came out.

• The 3-action economy is so much easier to play and explain than "wait, what's a 'swift' action again?" (I've taught a seven-year-old how to play successfully), but it doesn't feel like a video game like 5e does because there are actual, meaningful choices you can make with each of your three actions. While 5e (and 3.x before it) often devolves into "conga line of death" (surround the bad guy for flanking, whomp him with your biggest weapon twice per turn, don't move because he'll AOO you into powder), you can do essentially whatever you want with each of your three actions and make a difference.

• Plus, where 5e aimed at making things even more same-y with "bounded accuracy," PF2e leaned into crits so hard that they had to lean into crit fails, too, in order to balance them. You can crit succeed and fail at skill checks, and the APs have rules for what happens when you do. Some weapons are built around crits, and they're not a 1-in-20 chance anymore. You can do them quite often with the right build.

• As far as setting, the Forgotten Realms were probably interesting back when Greenwood came up with them, but putting a billion authors into the world has made it into the same bland, boring, Wal-Mart-Brand-Middle-Earth that Greyhawk was; but Golarion has something like three different continents for every possible type of fantasy setting you might want (that is a random guess, and probably an exaggeration).

And with the addition of Starfinder to the system a few weeks ago, all of that gets doubled or more.

Plus, it's so much easier to run as a GM than the 3.x games were. I remember the first time I put a "hard" encounter together for PF2e. I looked at it and was like, "whoa, that can't be right, I'm gonna have a TPK!" So I nerfed the encounter, and the players stomped it in two rounds. When I built an encounter the next week using the rules as written, it was a fun and dynamic encounter that lasted the entire session. One character went down. Everyone used their consumables and resources. It worked perfectly. Ever since, I trust that the encounter math knows what it's talking about. When was the last time you were able to say that in 3.x?

Doesn't help that we've got metric tons of content in the old system.

A lot of the really good stuff has been updated for the new system, either officially or by the community.

Why retrofit what didn't really need fixing?

I mean...3.x was kind of janky. Yeah, it was better than AD&D, and yeah, it was awesome in its time, but it's based on a 25-year-old system. People know a lot more about game design now, and it shows. Pathfinder 1e did noble work trying to make everything fit together, but they deployed a lot of duct tape over the nine years they were essentially "in charge of" the d20 system. When the "Pathfinder Unchained" classes came out, and you could see the difference between a modern approach and an original approach at the same table, it was like night and day. Some tables even banned Unchained classes because they would outshine the PHB/CRB classes, even though their damage output was still balanced.

I don't think Pathfinder 2e is a perfect system. But it's definitely better than the 3.x rules. That thing did, in fact, need fixing.

Just give me more APs.

They have! And they're great! You just have to play PF2e, or convert them to your system, in order to play them. Or you can play third-party adventures, which are still coming out for PF1e/3.x as recently as yesterday.

Like I said, if you still like 3.x, I'm glad! Enjoy what you enjoy. I think it's most important that people play the game they like at their tables. But 2e didn't make it "video game-y."

It's only a TTRPG if you can win it in character creation. Everything else is just sparkling video game.