Example. The Ogre encounter in BG3. You can place your party on the roof and just whittle them down with ranged weapons. They either stand still and do nothing or throw stuff at the ceiling without a line of sight and can never hit you. In PnP a DM would have the Ogres smash the walls to bring the whole building down and make the party roll Acrobatics checks or fall down as it shakes. Larian insisted on having a HUGE emphasis on verticality. But now that verticality is undermining the game itself by making it trivially easy. I didn't feel accomplished killing them that way. I felt like BG3 sucked. And before the inevitable "if you don't like it don't use it" argument, don't. I will use it, and the game will suck. If Larian insist on having such verticality but can't do what the PnP DM would do, they have failed and their game sucks.
In my experience, this encounter counts as an example of good game design. In my first playthrough the loud ogres were noticed and so were the holes in the roof. Thinking themselves smart, the brave adventurers in my party snuck upon the roof and circled the hole before launching an attack. It did not end well. Some party members fell down when parts of the roof collapsed, others were caught in area effects on the roof. It became a very challenging fight. Of course, in the next playthrough the adventurers were better prepared and better positioned.
I guess the point is: there is not much that game developers can do against a form of cheating that is widely available to everyone: foreknowledge.
