My argument is that they chose a specific design and then only capitalized on a fraction of its potential. I know it's more evidence of budget limitations than anything else but deflecting that criticism by saying that feature isn't needed is a weak argument against a valid critique....no ? A story doesn't "need" to have connection with another, it's a feature, not any sign of quality.
It would be like if I made a film that made no attempts to use the camera, lighting and acting in a meaningful way and was instead just a character piece based on dialogue. It's certainly a valid way of making art but I think it would be fair to criticize it for not capitalizing on what makes the medium inherently interesting and distinct from books, photography, etc.
Straight up, if they didn't have the bandwidth or resources to fully capitalize on the potential of their narrative framing device then they probably should have reconsidered structuring the game the way they did to begin with. Other games have been criticized for similar reasons and I think that line of argument applies to this as well.