I think what confuses me most is that the majority of posts knocking TotK say things like "it's exactly the same as BotW" or say it's using the "exact same map".

Having poured over 100 hours into each I just don't understand this take. It's objectively untrue. Yes, the core topical map is largely the same, but the content of it is extremely different. Having put so much time into BotW I've been very surprised at how few things are the same and like you have enjoyed seeing what has changed and where.

And that is to say nothing of the sky or the depths. The sky is somewhat limited but has such a sense of verticality and focus on flight that BotW didn't have. The depths are gargantuan and chock full of things to explore, including some fun ties to the upper world if you can find them.

I've also found the enemies to be more varied, and more difficult to defeat across the board. This has been a fun challenge for me as well.

So yeah. I don't know. It's just a much, much larger game. If people simply don't like it, or played BotW too recently for the core mechanics to feel fresh, then I kinda get it. Similarly if you are more into discovering more and more map and don't care what's in the map, then I can see how it could be a bit boring also. And overall maybe the open world style just isn't for you. Fair.

But I don't understand the criticisms I see most often about limited new content vs BotW because that is just very untrue.