I actually prefer open-world by default, as I'm generally a sandbox-fan. Singleplayer open worlds might be tricky however due to the need of lots of content or care to fill the huge spaces, whereas multiplayer sandboxes usually have the players deal with that.
At the end, I think SP open world focused games have pros and cons. It's ironic in away, the large world spaces that many consider as beneficial or positive can have drawbacks at the same time, such as the sheer size or option to go into any direction or change the order of events almost appearing as overwhelming or tiresome. Telling a story can (doesn't have to) also be harder in such games if a lot is up to random chance or if the pace is drawn out.
Opposed to this, specific singleplayer games with limited maps where you follow the story almost like a rollercoaster on rails are restricted more, but maybe often better at telling stories as the flow is more direct and condensed. At the end of the day I still prefer open world / sandbox SP RPGs or similar games.
The average SP game with a condensed story, I usually finish within a short time. 20 to 40 hours maybe? Maybe a bit more?
These open world RPGs and whatnot such as Fallout / Skyrim? Countless hours. Many more than 40 at least, and if the game is mod friendly, it can only add to hours and thus result in a good price for a game, given the invested hours.
At the end of the day I prefer the freedoms to pick various sides or go to various locations in no specific order. Open world might not be perfect or have perceived flaws, but for me the benefits usually outweigh the cons. Currently playing FO4 from the start and on survival again. Sure, it's tiresome at times but that's the overall challenge. Build something anew (on survival) from the ground up where you want.