I'm not really sure this is an OO vs. ECS vs. any other design architecture thing, as evidenced by a lot of your other replies. I think it's just a general programming pattern that it's very tempting to take a large dependency on in order to get some small bit of functionality. Then, Hyrum's Law takes over [1], and you end up with a few more bits of dependency on the massive bit of code you pulled in. And you pull in a few more massive dependencies for just little bits of functionality, and organically grow a few more attachments to the huge code base. And before you know it, you've got 10 massive dependencies, and you only use vanishing fractions of their functionality, but extracting any of them is a huge pain.

It's true that OO design pushed game engines in this direction; if you need something that only the last "full on NPC" node in the inheritance tree provides, which is very believable, then your designers are going to use it, even if they don't need most of the rest of what it provides. But I think this is something your designers are generally going to do anyhow. They aren't professional programmers and they aren't sitting there worried about long term code quality (especially not in the games industry), they are worried about getting their job done, and under any design it's going to be easier for them to reach for a large stick and pare it down than to reach for the small stick and then laboriously figure out how to attach the extra bit it needs. It doesn't matter how easy it is to attach the extra bit, it's going to be easier for them to grab the big, all-in-one provider. They're going to figure they may need the other stuff later anyhow, and they're reasonably likely to be right so it's hard to even call that irrational.

You can see this pattern all over in programming. I know of multiple codebases where I work that suffer from this pattern without any games being involved. Developers could implement new subsystems either as independent subsystems that they minimally connected into the main product, but have relatively few services provided by default to those subsystems, or they could start from day one fully integrated into the rather massive monolith with all the services it provided, even if it wasn't great with those services. And generally they would choose the latter, making the monolith even larger and the crossing mishmash of dependencies on the large services even bigger and more complicated. Maybe they were even right at the time, but now we've got some fairly large and complicated balls that can't be replaced in a big bang, but also can't hardly be replaced incrementally, because everything depends on everything. Upgrading any portion is a nightmare. They reached for the super complicated, relatively powerful objects that provided all the services even if they just needed a couple things, and now they're all in a spaghetti pile. And there's hardly any OO in sight, this is all really just procedural despite the occasional OO island.

You can see this in the still-growing general understanding in the programming community that dependencies are not free. The benefits you can obtain from a dependency are enormous, immediate, and easy to see. The costs are subtle, to the point that you can be mocked by developers for thinking they even exist (though I see this particular attitude fading, fortunately), but it's easy for them to grow into at least the order-of-magnitude of the benefits, and sometimes exceed them.

[1]: https://www.hyrumslaw.com/