I like that the world isn't saturated in locations and prefer the occasional longer trip through the wilderness.
I'm surprised there isn't more grind, to be honest. I think they're underestimating what it takes to keep people playing when they're subject to the typical MMO mindset - which most players seem to be in this case.
It's very unusual for a game to be this generous with content and constant rewards. It's almost like a singleplayer game in this way, which is very counter to the MMO paradigm.
That said, I would have preferred more "underground" or separate locations - but I understand why they felt the need to make a lot of it accessible without loading screens.
But it's a relatively small team making these games. I don't know the exact number - but the team behind Skyrim and FO4 was around 100 people - which is tiny compared to similar open world AAA games.
In fact, I'd say the norm for such games is at least 3-5 times this size, which is mostly down to the modern demands on asset fidelity. IIRC, Witcher 3 had up to 1500 people working on it worldwide, with ~250 people on the actual development team.
RDR2 had 1600+ people working on it.
Bethsoft prefer to keep the team smaller and more intimate, in an effort to coordinate and focus on their strengths. Meaning, when they sell 20 million copies - it's that much more profitable for ZeniMax.
Clearly, the FO76 team weren't the exact same people - but I expect most of them worked on FO4 to some extent.
They've clearly underestimated the technical implications of going multiplayer - and I think it's appropriate that they're getting some criticism.
My only hope is that they don't get scared off the cooperative formula - as I believe it's solid gold once they polish it up some.