I must say, reading this thread has really opened a new perspective for me. From a certain perspective, the OP is totally right. If you take the novels out of the context- Eridin and the Wild Hunt in general were really underdeveloped as villains, and don't hold a candle to Jacques de Aldersberg of W1 or Letho of W2. But the thing is, the former villains were entirely original creations. Most of the things in the first games were. Meanwhile, game 3 began using key characters from the books as centrail things in its plot- and since Geralt had regained his memory, the game presented many things as something to be taken for granted, without bothering to explain. Now while this was entirely ok for us book readers- seeing how we knew characters like Ciri, Yennefer and Eridin from the books, well before going into the first game, I imagine for a game player, it was downright confusing. Who is this Geralt's true love supposed to be? Wasn't my Geralt in love with Triss? Wait, what, Geralt has a daughter? And the Wild Hunt specters are actually elves from another world...? What the hell is this?
So yeah, if you look at it from that perspective, Eridin had to seem like a completely underdeveloped villain to someone who resigned themselves to games only. But, say, for me, it made no difference. Going into the game, I knew precisely who Eridin was and what his goals were. And from that perspective his portrayal is acceptable. He doesn't waste time monologuing with Geralt. His objective is Ciri and he very well knows Geralt wouldn't give her up for the life of him- so why even bother talking to your sworn enemy? To me Eridin's portrayal in TW3 was just a follow up from the books- and made perfect sense, so I didn't find it unsatisfying.
With regards to him being a pushover in a fight- well, that once again makes perfect sense. Remember, the Wild Hunt are not superhumans of some kind. They're elves from another world. That's that. And you may very well be underestimating just how downright OP the characters WE'RE in control are. Ciri's power is self explanatory and Geralt is hinted in the books to be perhaps the best swordsman currently alive. Eridin may be a formidable swordsman himself, but he lacks the superhuman reaction and agility. He put up as much fight as he's supposed to. Besides, Eridin has another fatal flaw- he's vain and arrogant. Exploiting that weakness allowed even Ciri to defeat him in a duel in the novels- and she's nowhere near on Geralt's level as a swordsman. Actually, between the three of them, Imlerith and Caranthir are both more intimidating presences than Eridin in combat. Imlerith is this scary nigh indestructible brute who wields weapons the size that a regular man could scarcely lift and has so much metal on him, I'd be hard pressed to imagine Geralt dealing any kind of damage to him with a sword. And Caranthir is a mage, whose also extremely skilled in melee combat with a staff- a combination that, if you recall, gave Geralt no shortage of trouble in the novels in the form of Vilgefortz. So yeah. After all, who says the leader of any kind of unit must also be its greater fighter as well? Doesn't apply to most militaries, shouldn't necessarily apply to the Aen Elle either.
So again, I personally found the game's portrayal of the Wild Hunt to be entirely agreeable. But I understand how it might be confusing or disappointing to a non-book reader. While the first two games were perfectly eligible as standalone and didn't require knowledge of the novels to play and enjoy, I imagine Witcher 3 could be downright confusing without having read up on the source material beforehand. The only thing I can agree to here is that Geralt's time with the Wild Hunt should have been more touched upon. Seeing how this is a new fact even to novel readers- and a surprising one at that- I too find myself wondering for more details on that particular bit of Geralt's history. But other than that? I'm good.
