Greetings!
Well, the guy who has left Pathfinder 2 and made the video does have a strong argument about how the mechanics *push* you to build a character, and I can definitely see the implied *rotation* of abilities that should be proceeded with for otherwise optimal mechanical results and performance.
I know all about character class "Rotations" from years playing World of Warcraft.
However, since D&D and its derivatives are tabletop roleplaying games--and people are not going into some uber *Raid* where every point of DPS is often of primary importance--I see many players just selecting feats and such often on their conceptualization of their character, regardless of any perceived mechanical benefits. A Ranger character for example, otherwise an archer, taking some feat to expand their healing abilities, or some specialized Knowledge-related feat that allows the character additional languages and cultural knowledge benefits--certainly may not be *mechanically optimal*--but fit right in with the character's background or current experiences and vision. That is perfectly acceptable, and who the hell cares if that character's "build" isn't somehow "mechanically optimal"? That is part of what makes tabletop RPG's fun--is creating and playing a character that is immersed in a fantastic world. Mechanical game considerations can often detract from such a goal in huge ways.
He isn't wrong though in how Pathfinder--and 3E before it--pushed character development to adopt such builds and rotations though. There is or can be a definite dynamic there. I can see how such a dynamic could make many such characters over time feel more and more like "cookie cutters" with set rotations and such--but that is why it is important to be able to embrace a broader view of character development, and just develop a particular character how you want, that matches how you envision the character's background and current development.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK