I’m not going to claim that’s an illusion of choice because I think there are more choices than just (and more choices that matter outside of) what you do in combat or when building characters, but it made combat feel kind of bleh. There was an investigator, and it was the same way. Devise a Strategem, do a thing (or not do a thing when you roll a natural 1). I need still to process my thoughts, so I’m not entirely sure what to make of that feeling right now.
You referenced this in the other thread, so I gave it a second look.
Pathfinder 2 is certainly not the game were you go for the high swing in round 1, forcing the opponent to parry; while in the next round you feint and stab.
Each round, yes, you do have a couple of feats granting you class-flavored special attacks, but there's generally no continuous selection process. You go for the mathematically optimal one.
There's some mixup in that you could go for something that slaps a condition (like flatfooted or prone) that can be more worthwhile in certain situations than in others (no need to flatfoot somebody when your buddy is already standing on the other side of the monster flanking).
You're basically given HUGE choice with very little mechanical effect. Of course some like how this means "there's no wrong choices" or even go "the game is won on the battlemat, not during charbuild".
But yeah, your choice mostly boils down to not doing the stupid thing like running into a room full of monsters just before all of them take their turn.
D&D has always been "I go you go" meaning "I stab you stab" with no meaningful need to explain or embellish what "stab" means.
I guess you can draw the conclusion "if it's all the same to you, I rather play a fine-page retroclone".
Personally however, I didn't get a "meh" out of PF2 combat. Most everything else, sure, maybe - but not combat.