Honestly, exploration is one of the weakest points for me in this game. I would keep EVERYTHING as is, including turn-based combat, but place our characters in a large open-world with hidden dungeons that require solving puzzles or perception checks. I honestly think this would be in line with what people imagine the world around them to be in tabletop.
I can't quite agree - I think current game's structure has issues, but exploration in itself is pretty good.
There is a lot of interesting stuff to find, so exploration is fun in that regard - there is something to find behind almost every corner. There is also a big variety of content, and a lot of cool stuff isn't screaing for players attention - so players need to pay attention, and can find interesting stuff for themselves. That is very good. Larian also has always managed to utilised character's skill set into exploration - less so in BG3 due to working with existing ruleset, but there are still many cool interactions one can find.
Really, the main issue I have with maps is "context" - they don't sell me on the fantasy of the place we are exploring. Creating bigger maps with "travel space" inbetween could address this issue, but I don't think it would be a good solution - unlike a third person action game, moving around BG3 isn't fun in itself. I don't mind riding waiting for something to catch my attention in Red Dead Redemption2 or Elden Ring, but that wouldn't work in BG3. Also with top down view, we can't look toward horizon, pick a landmark, and navigate toward it.
You could also divide the map in smaller areas between which you "travel". Exploration in BG1 was exactly what you describe without the things that may be boring in open world (filler content in exemple).
That's what has been done by most is not all other topdown game, and for a good reason, not just technical limitation. We get tightly designed "interesting" areas and abstracted travel inbetween, giving us both sense of adventure and a better idea of a land we are travelling through. Theoretially one could stitch, lets say Baldur's Gate1 maps into one, but I don't think it would work for the reasons I mentioned above - with very limited view players would get lost and get frustrated. Larian avoided this problem by making their "zones" very small, distinct and tightly put together, but that brings us to the problem that the game's world feels like a minature game board, rather than a believable place.
They could have worked around the issue, by picking a setting appropriate for such small scale map - alas. Larian shoved multiple towns, inns, forest, swamp and more into one tightly packed map.
I also don't know if it is just me, but I always found Larian's camera to be very disorienting. I don't have this issue anymore, as I know available BG3 maps rather well, but in D:OS1&2 and in my early BG3 playthroughs I would constantly get turned around by accident. I always prefered when top down games stuck to isometric, locked camera view - easier to navigate and not as tedious.
