I dont really understand your point. Devs still curate where you meet the enemies. Its not like its procedurally generated map where everything is random.

I haven't played it, so maybe they've done something to control it. I doubt it though. If you can come from any direction, that makes encounters much harder to design. Think about older Borderlands games when entering a compound. You'd come through one main gate and enemies would be set up with cover and you'd have to fight your way through. With open world you could do something like fly into the middle of the compound, and that's has to be accounted for.

Check out Roboquest, for example. It has some really impressive movement options, but it's choice of rooms let's them restrict how much you can abuse them. You'll always be fighting through the enemies from an expected direction.

I cant remember single time in my 20 hours of gameplay where i have tought that i hate fighting here, or that these enemies dont fit here.

This isn't what I meant. There's nuance between liking something and it being the best possible thing. It can be good and still be possible to be better. My biggest issue with open worlds is, like you mentioned at the beginning, fast travel. It takes so much time and resources to make an open world, just for players to fast travel past most of it. Is it really worth the that? Did it add that much to the experience? We could have more cheaper games with tighter designed experiences instead of games that cost hundreds of millions of dollars to make. (BL3 cost $140m, and for cost "more than twice" that, so minimum $280m.)

I don't think people understand that everything is an opportunity cost. If you make an open world game, that's at the expensive of so much more. At minimum, it's going to be less game to play (or longer between games and more expensive). Is getting a lot of space that you hardly interact with worth it?