PnP is a slow paced roleplay intensive game. cRPG is more action and puzzle based, and far more fast paced.
It can be. It also can have other elements. PnP focuses on three main pillars - different types of games focus on one element or another more than other players and different games. When a D&D game is presented in a video game format, they usually focus more heavily on the action, exploration and puzzle elements, because those are what work best for the media.
Resting after each encounter in PnP makes sense. Usually, you've gotten in a bunch of roleplay and storyline in by the time that happens. It makes zero sense in a cRPG.
To whom? I certianly don't play in nay games where we rest after every encounter, and I don't generally do it in video games either. Getting what you can done in a day and managing your energy and resources to do so is part of the game, whether it's in tabletop or digital formats. If you're trying to rest after every little scrap, and your DM is letting you, that's between you and your DM but it's not indicative of normal play, generally speaking.
The end of the day the rest mechanic was/is a balancing mechanic, that is all it was. Y'all are clinging to it like its a plot element to rest to reset spells. Resting was and is a plot element in stories because every time of the day is a plot element.
So, there's a mechanic that exists as part of game balance. There's an in-universe justification and an explanation that goes along with this and is an established part of the lore in the world space. You're saying that it's just a mechanic though, and is not important - you're saying that there's no reason not to completely excise that particular part of the world lore and the history surrounding it. Why? What justifies that arbitrary decision that you're making? Why is that piece of long-standing established in-universe world lore not important, but other parts are? What is your reasoning? You didn't actually give any, despite your vehemence, and I'd like to know.
Pathfinder is not popular at all, and while maybe you can argue it doesn't matter, it actually does. Sorry mate but this is a capitalist society, you wont see games you like develop more content and new games if they don't make popular and therefore successful money making games.
Yes it was. It was quite successful. They are currently making another one.
Some others have mentioned Solasta(a game can be made that way) uhm yeah it can be made, doesn't mean it should. Solasta is in EA, and we dont even know how successful it will be, so that's a poor choice.
So is this game; that's part of why people compare it. They are both in EA. We don't know how successful either of these titles will be when they release. People are comparing their experiences of them. The general consensus from a large majority of commenters seems to be that the other game's implementation of the ruleset is very satisfying as well as being very close to faithful; that the game provides fulfilling, meaningful, tactical and satisfying combat that is enjoyable to play. People who were drawn to this game based on the promise of a near faithful 5e implementation, and of a dungeons and dragons game, have for the most part been quite disappointed, upset, felt lied to or deceived, or else have contented themselves with other aspects of the game instead. Most who wanted what was promised by larian and have been told about or tried out the other game have found it to be much closer to what they felt larian was promising, and much more satisfying in that regard, even if many other elements of that game are more staunchly lacking still. I do not believe that your opinion is a majority here, and it's certainly not a definitive fact.
==
The bottom part of your post is more full of abrasive, derogatory or deliberately antagonistic, flame-baity remarks; you're not going to convince anyone or win any supporters by talking like that.
