Fixed camps are always going to be immersion breaking if there's considerable distance to cover on a map.
DA:O was particulary bad - I mean it's ridiculus to think that the party is walking halfway across a kingdom to do a quest, then walking all the way back again to the same camp to sleep! They're spending more time travelling than there are hours in the day!
That said, the map isn't so huge in BG3. Except for the underdark, we could have a temporary camp there rather than climb a mile long ladder twice each day!
Regarding camping, whats wrong with the Baldurs gate 2 way of doing it?
Go to an Inn and pay.
No camping in cities, and certain areas.
Camp limit in dungeons, after the second time monsters auto span, no rest.(SCS mod).
Unlimited camp in the wild but monsters/animals of a chance to wake you and attack, no rest.
A realistic and immersive implementation requires more resources as it ties into a functional day/night cycle, that in turn ties into AI behaviour patters changing according to the passing time. Larian has previously addressed the issue, and it seems like they have convinced themselves that this requires some super elaborate TES/Radiant AI style of behavior (when the original BG-series did it in a simple and immersive enough manner).
A static camp requires much less resources than the above scenario, while also having the added convenience of being ever-present. A static camp can provide the comfort of a home base in an otherwise ever-changing environment, as well as give the illusion of passage of time (day/night cycle).
Seems to me Larian lacks any sort of overarching vision of this aspect. The only way to maintain immersion with a static camp in a large diverse area, is making the transition to it magical in nature (teleport), yet why then would they choose a nondescript area as a camp? The lack of vision is compounded by resting mechanics tying into a slew of balancing issues given D&D class/feat abilities are heavily balanced on resting mechanics. As well as a developing narrative dissonance of being given unlimited time to "waste" while also in a desperate fight against time while the tadpole eats away on your brain, while Gale's heart, the nethernese destruction orb, is literally a ticking time bomb.
The problem in the last decade of gaming everyone wants <convenience>. People want everything and NOW. Unlimited inventory, auto travel, rest anytime, no time cycles, all classes for everyone, auto this auto that.
This makes it hard to make an interesting RPG, because to be somewhat <realistic> <strategic> and <interesting> you need to add RESTRICTIONS *(in my opinion...! others will say AUTO give me everything is more fun...which I don't get.).
This is definitely a thing. Convenience is now king. One of the many failures of Mass Effect: Andromeda was the dismantling of any defining class system (who could not have seen that coming with a radicalizing Bioware lol). Turns out when you are everything, you also become very bland.
In DOS2, the more you play the less fun in gets. Ironically the first chapters, when you are RESTRICTED to fewer abilities and items is the more fun part of the game.
Afterwards, too much of everything. Items, abilities...it becomes a bloated numbers mess. It becomes mundane and boring.
This was my experience as well, certainly the insane numbers bloat that came with their excessive Diablo-esque loot focus. Everything mattered much less knowing the now-perfect item would be redundant in two quick levels. It became a compulsive grind that felt little rewarding.
The issue was exacerbated by the hyper-focus of Early Access on the first act only which led to the proceeding acts feeling somewhat empty and anticlimactic in comparison. This is a valid concern for the development of BG3 too; have they learned from the past pitfalls?
