Agreed. It seems apparent to me that they didn't know how they would end the series, and that they opted to pseudo-start the story from scratch by returning to the end of Witcher 1, rather than continuing the superb plot design of Witcher 2. There are hints that they did, e.g. having Geralt get his memory back, and Letho mentioning Yen at the end of 2, but I honestly thought they would take it in a completely different direction than they did. This was Ciri's story as much as Geralt, as she points out to us in one part of the game, and given the fact that this was supposed to be Geralt's conclusion, it feels strange. I do realize that Geralt's link with Ciri is really important, pivotal even, but it diminished his conclusion, I think, making the ending of his saga quite unsatisfying.
Yea the game was more about Ciri than Geralt. Honeslty it didn't feel like a SEQUEL to Witcher 2, but more like a standalone expansion. I woulda preferred more focus on Yen/Triss and their relationship with Geralt, it is HIS last game afterall. The ending was unsatisfying as well, flashing forward with more focus on Ciri's fate left too many questions behind. What happened to Avallac? What happened to Yen outside the barrier? All your other friends who were fighting the Hunt? Woulda liked to at least get to talk to my allies after the battle.