Please take this as a fun analysis.
But I'm convinced that any gaming system will be a success as long as you have players who are engaged and a compelling storyline from the DM.
The 3-action system is a vast improvement over the dizzying array of action types from PF1.
These two statements are fundamentally contradictory.
Yes, both statements may be independently true. But the game happens amongst a group of people at a table. While each participant certainly has there own perception of the experience. But in each case they have a unified/homogenized experience of everything contributing to the play.
Let's assume a great DM and engaged contributing players. So the experience is predestined to be awesome. So we are golden.
But, if this golden game was being played in PF1 last week and was upgraded to PF2 this week and everything else stayed the same, then
at least for you the game has experienced a "vast improvement" in one area.
Now, let's assume for second that everyone else at the table other than you hates the change. So the next week you go back. It is now OBJECTIVELY true that your personal SUBJECTIVE experience has declined, because you have lost a vast improvement. You continue to have a great time because this is still the same golden game you had before with a group of engaged players (yourself included). So it is not a losing situation, just the smaller of the winning options. But so it goes.
If we assume that everyone else also loves the change, then big win for all.
If we assume that there is division of opinion and that unhappy people make it known, then the "engaged players" boundary condition has been broken. So we won't go there.
The bottom line is that, regardless of the truth of "good players make good games", the merits of system (mechanics) are in parallel with that statement. And playing the "better" system for the group in question is always the dominant alternative. "Good players" just obscures the conversation abotu which system is best.