The point that has been made a 1000 times is "if you could just shove someone why would you not just attack again?"
In the other-game-that-shall-not-be-name I used shove (usually prone) to break engagement - usually a melee character breaking engagement for wizard so she can cast a spell in her turn without disadvantage or wasting spell resource for Misty Step.
Again, not complexity present in BG3 due to everyone, always having misty step in form of jump.
Attack vs shove vs disengage is a DPS over utility over positioning. And valid tactical decision, if game is well balanced. But that discussion isn't about action economy, not what OP is talking about.
As to over-the-top arcs - I think itmakes shove more universally useful. If it was less pronanounced, then shoving people of cliffs would be harder, and fighting for the advantage is the main mechanic that BG3 revolves around right now. Compare it to game-that-shall-not-be-name, where I found so far handful occasions to push people down the cliff. I think that's more satisfying when it happens rarely, but restrain is not something Larian goes for.
