A final note from the OP
This game is so close to being one of the best games ever made. It is held back only by its lack of real satisfying choices. If the devs want W3 to be played for 20 years like Balders Gate .... all they need to do is give the player more freedom and empowerment. Most of this can be done without changing the game flow too much. In the end it will benefit the game more than the crappy DLC most devs release.
As a side note, when I talked with a friend about my experiences with W3 they bought me Dragon Age Inquisition. What a horrible game .... didn't last 3 hours. I felt like a caged rat with all the corridors and scripted battles and lack of control and hitting over and over and over. And the controls and camera, no game came closer to making me hurl. You can just feel how every encounter is designed to be tedious. W3 is a masterpiece compared.
Interestingly enough the rickety old Skyrim engine is still my favorite (properly modded of course). Too bad nobody can make a game worth playing on it. Precious few quests are worth the time. If somebody could patch on a decent questing engine on top of the Skyrim engine, that might be the future.
If Bethesda and ProjectCD could collaborate and make an engine with the best of both worlds and get somebody who knows how to write complex quests and NPCs, perhaps gaming could rise out of the violent pablum it currently is. That said the quests in W3 are far better than I expected and if more choice and empowerment was offered I would say they have the questing talent to pull it off.
How on Earth is the choice system in ES games more meaningful than the witcher? As far as I remember choices in Skyrim change very little about the world you're in. While the main quest gives you a bit of leeway , the sidequests are as linear as they get. The only "meaningful" choice you can make is often whether to stab the questgiver after you complete his quest. But how is the freedom to slaughter a meaningful rpg option? eh.... Maybe I'm wrong but please give me some examples of those great morally-dubious choices in Skyrim?
Skyrim is a beautiful sandbox buut the writing is kinda simplistic. I don't even blame Skyrim for this, I think that RPG design where your character is a blank slate can never be successful. How can you care about a character if he/she has no history, no motivations , nothing that would give the protagonist substance. Roleplaying is based on playing a role , not controlling a shell of a man. I'm so glad that CDPR actually gets that instead of perpetuating the mistakes of Bethesda or Bioware.
CDPR decided to go for for an emotional tale with substance where your choices actually affect the world that surrounds you. This is what we call roleplaying.
The worst thing is that I actually love Skyrim and think it was a stepping stone towards the greatness of TW3 but it's a game that hasn't aged well (even with mods). It just bugs me so much when I see people claiming Skyrim is in any way superior to TW3. The new ES game may well be better , let's wait and see. If you don't like the choices presented in the Witcher, it means that you cannot "get into" the world. That's okay, it may be not be your kind of a world. But please, stop with the pointless ES nostalgia. It is not humanly possible to love ES for the story unless there's a mod that totally overhauls it.
P.S: I know, I know, you shouldn't feed trolls. Next thing you know they will be demanding a bucket of red paint
P.S.S: Not all ES writing is bland and generic. Morrowind had a really good story, but again, no big, world-altering choices