“Bethesda [...] pushes further towards immersive sims”

New Vegas quests were extremely open ended, far more than anything else Bethesda had made, the one example they picked is actually fairly representative of the kind of branching that can happen. It's dishonest to say that it isn't.

The world design being better is, I guess, subjective. But I personally think Bethesda's worlds, while immersive and pretty, suffer from the same problems that are caused by their approach to difficulty scaling. If the game is designed so that you can go anywhere, everywhere needs to be designed so it can accommodate a player at level 1. Sneaking up north past the Cazadors at the start of the game is rewarding in NV because it feels like you're sequence breaking, it feels like you're getting one over on the game. That never happens in Bethesda's worlds (past Morrowind, which did a bit of soft-gating).

New Vegas wasn't terribly incomplete either, a lot of it's problems were inherited rather than created by them and the story and quests were all fleshed out. The multiple endings were varied, the ending montage could drag on almost too long with the amount of stuff it had to say about the effects you had on the world. It had some of the best received DLC too.

Reads more like a bunch of excuse making for criticisms of Bethesda and their games, rather than a truly critical analysis. Lots of subjectivity as fact. I like Bethesda's games, I'm looking forward to Starfield, I think a lot of negative criticism towards Bethesda is stupid fanboy garbage, but that doesn't make them above reproach.