I think this sort of thing was a big learning curve for designers (for reasons that will never make sense to me). The problem it presented was that it was anti-immersive because it ran directly against everything they were telling you about your character and how skilled and important they were and so on. It was also at odds with earlier designs, like System Shock, which got the design right the first time around, by not doing that.
So they failed twice - failed to learn from earlier games, and failed to think about what actually fit their setting and made sense.
CRPG designers still fail this way pretty often (and it is an outright failure, I’d say, not a valid design choice at all). Witcher 3 is a remarkably designed game in a lot of ways but contains several bizarre choices where the mechanics run hard against the fiction (not least literally every single thing about the equipment system, and I mean literally everything - if you were looking to create an inappropriate equipment system for the Witcher mythos, you couldn’t do much better than Witcher 3).
Unfortunately it started a trend of games making similar mistakes - Mass Effect 1 did the same thing, and it was just as completely risible and ridiculous. They had to use an algorithm to make you miss that ended up meaning that if you aimed away from a small target you’d hit it with more rounds than if you fired directly at it. Likewise Alpha Protocol. At that point however it seems like people learned their lesson, and got the idea that in a game that had heavy FPS elements, maybe the character should be able to shoot straight from the get-go, rather than 25-60% of the way through the game, especially if you, the writers, had asserted that that character was some kind of combat expert (which in all the relevant games, they had).
It’s really part of the whole deeply naive design that was going on in the 1990s and very early 2000s in CRPGs, and that had only just kinda stopped going on in tabletop RPG design (and is still often seen in AAA CRPG design). It was very frustrating for me because I could see how bloody stupid it was, and how the designers must have had really muddy and vague thinking about (and indeed, interviews with them which touched on the subject seemed to support this). In tabletop RPGs I’d been trying to help people to understand that some mechanics and mechanical designs were directly contrary to what they were trying to achieve, and I could see that I was part of a general trend. But even as tabletop RPG design became more actually rational and goal-oriented (rather than randomly coming up with idiotic systems), computer games, especially CRPGs, continued to roll out terribad systems designed by apparent idiots.
I have to admit, this is kind of bugbear of mine. It seems like most reviewers can’t grasp the concept. And it’s not a complicated concept. A lot of games have elements where the design is just completely terrible, or at least completely antithetical to what the game is trying to do, or the setting it’s trying to portray, and it seems like in a lot of cases, reviewers just completely overlook that, it doesn’t even occur to them. Then you get loads of games with deeply mediocre design elements getting praised to high heaven by these dimwits, whilst beautifully and elegantly designed games that work really well and achieve their objectives are often given a “Yeah, cool, I guess…”. Indie games have helped a bit here, at least, as people often look at the mechanics in a more serious way as they don’t have graphics and dialogue to distract them.