Thought this article was worth a share. It's not strictly about The Witcher 3, but TW3 is one of the main talking points.
The issue at the heart of the article is whether open-world level design is worth the amount of effort that goes into it. The author makes the point that even The Witcher 3 and Metal Gear Solid V - two of the best open-world games to come out in recent years - are unable to escape repetitive gameplay elements.
I don't agree with everything he says. I myself am used to playing boring, repetitive games. The average amount of time I put into a game that I play past 10 hours is probably somewhere around 80 hours. So the repetitive elements in TW3 and MGSV are of no concern to me. But I know quite a few people who are tired of open-world level design. So I thought the article was discussion worthy.
So what do you think? Is TW3's open-world top notch? Or is it too big for it's own good? Should it be half the size without all the generic side content, like monster lairs and guarded treasures?
I think that open world games are either fantastic, as in 'The Witcher 3', or bad, as in 'Dragon Age: Inquisition'. There really is not much middle ground. As long as there is a good variety of things to do, I adore open world games and I always will. TW3 nails it in my opinion. Yeah, there are some repetitive elements, can't argue that, but there is so much good. The side content in TW3 is fantastic. The monster contracts are almost all very, very good, and the other side quests such as the things you do for the Baron, or Keira, or Triss, or Dandelion are all so very well done, filled with so many great choices and consequences.
On the other hand, if your game is going to be filled with endless MMO style fetch quests, you should probably stay away from making open worlds in the future.