The first thread in the OP was well written, albeit a little overblown. The criticism was fair, harsh sometimes too picky but very accurate and I hope devs read this.
What I do not agree with:
The game is just as mature in the evil vs good department, with exceptions in different acts:
- Witcher 1 had the problem in Act 1 with the village in Outskirts Vizima being full of douches and the witch being the good person.
- The obvious example that neutrality is kinda, somewher the better choice than siding with Order or Scoia'Tael in Witcher 1. Despite the fact that the Order choice leads to a pleasant encounter with Sigfried.
Thing is that in other regards such as story wise, looks like the game was indeed cut and rushed for release.
Can't write a lot now, but bottom line - if CD Projekt doesn't make an Enhanced Edition ( I don't believe they can't hire people or don't have money at this peak of popularity) then I won't buy any of the DLC's or future games. This trilogy is exactly that. A trilogy, not a standalone Witcher 3 game with no connection to the previous ones. A free update with an EE is in order to satisfy those who are disappointed.
I'm not asking to bring everything from Witcher 1 and 2 back, but Witcher 3 is still far from perfect, despite side quests being brilliant. The main story was just... not doing justice to the great legacy left by Sapkowski.
Right now just better to read Sezon Burj and call it a day.
Thanks for still letting constructive criticism here.
---------- Updated at 04:15 PM ----------
I didn't say he was a deep character. I was arguing that your claim that he was portrayed as "evil for the sake of evil" was factually incorrect. He has motivations that are explicitly stated, but his motivations are irrelevant to the main characters of the game because of what he wants to do.
I agree with those who believe that Eredin could have been portrayed better. However, making him more complex is a tricky thing to do within the context of TW3 story since the point of view characters don't have a lot to talk about with him. It's more of a fight or flight situation. I am glad they did not opt to treat him like DA:I did with Corephius where he decides to chat with the Inquisitor instead of just killing him when he had the chance at their first meeting.
As I stated before (most thoroughly here
http://forums.cdprojektred.com/thre...tures-Thread?p=1771788&viewfull=1#post1771788), the only way that really makes sense to get a deeper look at Eredin is in a flashback mission through Ciri's eyes so that it is in a time where he would sit and talk with a POV character. They chose not to get bogged down in all that for whatever reason - it could be pacing, technical difficulties, legal issues, or any number of other reasons. I can respect that. It isn't really necessary to understand the story they wanted to tell anyways ... but it would have been awesome to see. I don't think that design decision makes the game "immature."
Despite not being in mood for talk I will debate.
Eredin is a rough edge in the end of the story because he is totally not the complex, real king of the Elves we saw in the Books who preceeded him, who talked with Ciri, who had Machiavellian methods but also something deeper inside.
Eredin is just a downgrade of all that. But... just a scene with explaining the connection of the books with the game, some 2D flashback of the story Eredin, Ciri and Geralt had (esp. after Geralt died) would clear a lot of mud.
Think about how confusing it is for those who are in their first encounter with the Witcher saga. This is an urgent red flag that needs fixing.
Totally agreed with the opinion you gave in the link in regard to the Lady of the Lake sequence and making it in Witcher 3 somehow.
Once more - a simplistic 2D narration like in Witcher 1 would be sufficient! No need to cramp millions of dollars on story leaks. It's 2016 after all.