Korea was a very different war. Firstly it was land based, so China had no air or sealift problems, they could just send troops and materiel by land over the border. That makes a *huge* difference. The Americans had to air or sea lift in every single bullet. In Taiwan, both sides would have to do this, and the hard reality is that the US Navy still has a much larger sealift capability than China, and would also have the advantage of having local allies on the ground in Taiwan. The PLAN is rapidly improving but in sheer lift capacity are still a good way behind the Americans in scale, and that makes everything else harder. If the Americans go literally all-in, and throw everything short of nukes at Taiwan, China just won't be able to land enough troops and materiel quickly enough to maintain a viable force.
The other issue is experience, and there is no shortcut to it. Going from "no experience of full scale conflict for 70 years" to "Lets launch an amphibious assault against a full scale American force on their allied territory" in one go doesn't seem like a terribly wise strategy.
A full-on amphibious assault on Taiwan to confront a joint Taiwan-American force there would be one of the most complex and demanding war scenarios since WW2. America has a wealth of experience of doing it before, with equipment and personnel that have been tried and tested in the field. China has got completely new equipment is has never had to use in anger, with men and women who have no experience of full-scale conflict. This is another reason why I think a limited scale action on the outer islands would be more likely, as it would be a low-risk way for Chinese forces to be tested and perfected in real-world conditions, and apply lessons learned to future conflicts.
Excepr you total missed on the thousands of dongfeng missiles, whose primary purpose is to safeguard china's sovereign integrity aka the repatriation of tw island.