As to scale, when I look at a map of the US, I can actually see all 50 states. The "distance" between Chicago and Kansas City is most definitely not to scale, because it's literally easily measured in inches, while it's actually hundreds of miles. If maps were "to scale", they would be impossible to use, that's why they include an "X = y miles" scale. So the "delusion" here is that we need use an open world game as a comparison, when that's not the case. What leads me to believe that? Look at the games you listed as a comparison. A more accurate comparison would have been Dragon Age et al, Baldur's Gate et al, Icewind Dale et al, or NWN et al. You know, games that have lots of areas that require area transitions to get to, instead of open world games.
Real maps are fine because
everything is equally proportionally to scale. Every single distance measured on the map (in inches) can be multiplied by the same conversion factor to get the real-world distance.
The issue with the BG3 map is that either things are
differently scaled, OR everything is too close together. The grove, the nautiloid, the Blighted Village, most houses, all-distances-while-in-combat-mode: all of these are clearly at the same scale. Characters moving X inches on your screen always are traveling Y "game-world" feet. However, is this true for the more transitory areas? When characters walk from the Grove to the Blighted Village, how far are they moving? Actually a few hundred feet, or dozens of miles? The former means the goblins are incredibly dumb for not finding the Grove. And the former means that the map is inconsistent, which is additionally problematic because the map is inconsistent to an *unknown* degree, meaning the player has to assert their own headcannon for which areas aren't to scale, and to what degree.
Your last few sentences are exactly what some of us want. Consistently scaled areas, with transitions between different areas to reflect larger distances travelled.
