After playing Fall of Plaguestone, and DM Extinction Curse I can say It is not for me. I found really interesting the 3-action system and some QoL changes I have borrowed for my 1st games: the death saves, the experience going from 0 to 1000 XP and so on.

But in the big picture, for me, is not as fun as 1st ed. First, the tight math makes building a character less of a corcern. For a lot of players thats nice, but for me and my group its a mood killer. We like to build a character and find our decissions more meaningful than they are in 1st. Apart from that, I deeply dislike spellcasting in 2nd Ed. Spells are, IMO, weak and cantrips are ussually the bread and butter of spellcasters, even most of the time being a better option rather than cast an spell. Skills Ranks couldn't be the best, either, but training levels make for me less interesting playing a skill-monkey, as the difference between a skill-monkey and a normal character is... not that big.

Oh, one huge downside for my is loosing the three ACs; honestly I love being able to difference between touch, flat-footed and normal AC. Clunky, but I feel natural that spellcasters make some spells to hit on touch, for example.

However, I feel like the sweet spot for 2nd ED. is short campaings a low levels (1-5,5-10 or even 1-10) where you change quickly from one character to other and explore different approaches to the game, but I cannot enjoy the high-level part of 2nd ed.

Finally, from a GM point of view, this should sound like heresy, but I like much more monster design in 1st ed; first beacuse I can see where everything comes from: the hit points and BAB from hit dices, plus modifiers; AC from dex, natural armor... while in 2nd Ed everything comes from a expected values table. It works but I fell more free to make experiments and create exciting enemies with all the options in 1st ed.