Such an uninspired disappointing story

[BroccoliSouP]

Main villain of W3 was also practically main villain of W1. People forget about White Frost being shown to us in W1, how things would transpire and the fact that child of Elder blood has power either to start it, or stop it. And btw, Avalach's intentions become more clear on second playthrough, for example you can find a lot of clues in his laboratory about his interest in white frost.

So what? My point is that Eredin is just flat out bad dude trying to invade TW world. Nothing else...the game does not show anything else with him, does not try to expand his character into something more, just typical bad guy.

To compare with grandmaster he turned out to be Alvin who was told by Geralt he should use his talents and because he saw prophecies in his dreams, he decided to do it his own way. Suddenly he is more than bad dude just because you know his background and what is his motivation based on.

 

[ViperSchoolWitcher]

To be fair, while I am a big critic of Act III of the Witcher 3, I do not understand the following criticism: "Why isn't TW3 a direct sequel to TW2??"

Well, TW2 was not a direct sequel to TW1.

The first Witcher game I played was TW2 and I was drawn into it without requiring much knowledge on the first game. The same applies for TW3.

CDProjketRED is a growing firm, so it makes sense that they're trying to attract more and more people to their games. And they deserve it, despite some shortcomings of TW3.

It was probably purely a business decision to not have each game directly related.


A bigger problem occurs with the content. It seems that CDProjektRED sacrificed quality for quantity in TW3.

TW2's story was admittedly short. Maybe it's just me, but the main storyline took less than 20 hours on normal difficulty. The world in TW2 was smaller and more linear. On my first two playthroughs, I focused entirely on the main plot because it was SO interesting. In this game, we had more quality than quantity. This was perfect.

TW3, on the other hand, had an open world with more things to do. The main storyline alone takes 40-50 hours to complete on normal. I poured around 80 hours into the game before completing it. Sadly, Act 3 was poorly done and the endings did not provide me with satisfaction. Most quests in the previous acts involve finding one person to find another to find another to find another to find Ciri (as mentioned in the first post on this thread).

For the first 30 hours, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt was more like The Witcher 3: Hunt and Seek. There was nothing wrong with this to be honest. Despite the game feeling like Hunt and Seek, there were many memorable moments - Bloody Baron, companion side quests, Skellige main quests and side quests, etc. Just because Geralt was going on a Hunt and Seek adventure does not necessarily mean it was a bad thing.

If only Geralt's companions (Yen, Triss, Zoltan, Dandelion, etc) were utilized more in his missions, I would have enjoyed Hunt and Seek more.


CDProjektRED just left us with unsatisfying endings and I echo everything that was said about Act 3.



Thoughts?

EDIT: Don't get me started on the value of "parental decisions" in Act 3. The logic behind how certain parental actions affect certain ends is just flawed. Makes absolutely 0 sense. This was probably the worst part of TW3.

 

[moonknightgog]

To be fair, while I am a big critic of Act III of the Witcher 3, I do not understand the following criticism: "Why isn't TW3 a direct sequel to TW2??"

Well, TW2 was not a direct sequel to TW1.

The first Witcher game I played was TW2 and I was drawn into it without requiring much knowledge on the first game. The same applies for TW3.

CDProjketRED is a growing firm, so it makes sense that they're trying to attract more and more people to their games. And they deserve it, despite some shortcomings of TW3.

It was probably purely a business decision to not have each game directly related.


A bigger problem occurs with the content. It seems that CDProjektRED sacrificed quality for quantity in TW3.

TW2's story was admittedly short. Maybe it's just me, but the main storyline took less than 20 hours on normal difficulty. The world in TW2 was smaller and more linear. On my first two playthroughs, I focused entirely on the main plot because it was SO interesting. In this game, we had more quality than quantity. This was perfect.

TW3, on the other hand, had an open world with more things to do. The main storyline alone takes 40-50 hours to complete on normal. I poured around 80 hours into the game before completing it. Sadly, Act 3 was poorly done and the endings did not provide me with satisfaction. Most quests in the previous acts involve finding one person to find another to find another to find another to find Ciri (as mentioned in the first post on this thread).

For the first 30 hours, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt was more like The Witcher 3: Hunt and Seek. There was nothing wrong with this to be honest. Despite the game feeling like Hunt and Seek, there were many memorable moments - Bloody Baron, companion side quests, Skellige main quests and side quests, etc. Just because Geralt was going on a Hunt and Seek adventure does not necessarily mean it was a bad thing.

CDProjektRED just left us with unsatisfying endings and I echo everything that was said about Act 3.

If only Geralt's companions (Yen, Triss, Zoltan, Dandelion, etc) were utilized more in his missions, I would have enjoyed Hunt and Seek more.


Thoughts?

EDIT: Don't get me started on the value of "parental decisions" in the game. The logic behind how certain parental actions affect certain ends is just flawed. Makes absolutely 0 sense. This was probably the worst part of TW3.

My thoughts is that should be more consequences about the choices you made in TW2 (there is a decision making even on PS4 and for people who is new to this series).
There should be more internal consequences, because the entire Act 2 is a waste of time. You can go directly to the isle of mists, doesn't matter if you don't bring your allies in Kaer Morhen, nothing change.
There should be more dialogues between Geralt/Triss/Yennefer and Ciri.
More dialogues with Av'allach in order to understand the entire "white frost situation".
More dialogues and scenes with Eredin, in order to better characterize him as a villain, and not only as the bad guy who want to destroy the world.

 

[Redemyr]

I know this is going to be an unpopular opinion, but: the premise that the story is uninspired and disappointing is really, a criticism of the books. It is also a criticism of the developer's decision to tie the story back into the books, rather than simply telling us their own adapted yarns. Because the climax of this game is all about resolving the major unresolved plot point of the books: the White Frost and Ciri's role in that prophecy.

As somebody else pointed out, the Witcher books really have two narratives. The human narrative that is interesting and compelling, and the fantasy narrative that is not very interesting or compelling at all. And this holds true in the games. Geralt and his bumbling, stumbling, down on their luck friends are interesting. The Wild Hunt and the Elder Blood are not interesting.

Nothing is going to make Mary Sue Ciri saving the world from global cooling a particularly inspired or interesting story. You gotta take the good with the bad.

If the developers of this game made a mistake with the storytelling, it was that they went too far into the source material. Because -- and again, I know this will be unpopular -- the source material falls flat on its own face in many respects.

I was going to write something similar, but could have put it better myself. The books should have remained an inspiration, a sort of canvass for them to write their own stories.

And you can see the results throughout the whole game. Side quests or main quests that don't tie exactly with the overall plot have so much better stories in them. Imagine Game of Thrones if they were mostly about the ice zombies coming from the north and not all the underlying political intrigue and character development. How popular would that be?

 

[ivashanko]

Just because most people see it that way doesn't make it right

When talking about a non-factual subject the closest we can get to 'objective' is the general consensus. If most people see a story as good, then the story is indeed good, regardless of what any one person thinks about the subject.

 

[Bansai]

I appreciate the personal story game wanted to tell us, and apart from doing constantly favors for people in exchange for information I pretty much enjoyed it, however I was VERY disappointed with 2 things.

Firstly, I think the game lacked epicness that was present in 2 (la valette siege, aedirn siege, big bosses like Keiran or DRAGON!!!), quick example of what I'm talking about, since the world in TW3 is war torn, why we never saw (or even took part in) any major battle or even a skirmish between north and nilfgaard? As a side-quest, or even a random encounter? Everybody was just on constant standby, untill booom, this garrison is dead, those guards on the bridge are dead, oh, and novigrad was taken by ... (your choice). I was really disappointed with that. Yeah there was Kaer Mohren fight, which was badass buuuut... that's about it? After all those flashy trailers I kind of expected more, more magical fireworks from mages, more bigger battles etc.

Secondly, and probably my biggest disappointment in the story was the portrayal of the Wild Hunt ... I mean ... what? I see the guy twice in the entire SERIES (not counting the spectre we killed in TW1) and he's dead now? The big bad boogeyman? The one that cast his shadow over Geralt since Witcher 1? I wiped the floor with him, literally... Nah-uh, that was very anti-climatic and dissatisfying.

Also, wouldn't hurt nobody to actually expand on the fantasy elements since they play a PRETTY MAJOR ROLE at the end of the game, like wth Whie Cold actually is, how the hell Ciri stoppped it, something more about Elder Blood etc.

 

[moonknightgog]

When talking about a non-factual subject the closest we can get to 'objective' is the general consensus. If most people see a story as good, then the story is indeed good, regardless of what any one person thinks about the subject.

The exactly opposite. The general consensus doesn't add anything to a fact. It's a fallacy.

 

[ivashanko]

The exactly opposite. The general consensus doesn't add anything to a fact. It's a fallacy.

And if this were a discussion about objective truths, your point would be correct. The value of a story, however, is not a 'factual' or objective concept, and thus has to be measured by other means. As video game stories are told primarily for entertainment, it is very much a good story if most people enjoyed it and were entertained by it, and one that does not fulfill its primary goals if most people were not.

 

[inanimate_object]

To be fair, while I am a big critic of Act III of the Witcher 3, I do not understand the following criticism: "Why isn't TW3 a direct sequel to TW2??"

Well, TW2 was not a direct sequel to TW1.

The first Witcher game I played was TW2 and I was drawn into it without requiring much knowledge on the first game. The same applies for TW3.

CDProjketRED is a growing firm, so it makes sense that they're trying to attract more and more people to their games. And they deserve it, despite some shortcomings of TW3.

It was probably purely a business decision to not have each game directly related.


A bigger problem occurs with the content. It seems that CDProjektRED sacrificed quality for quantity in TW3.

TW2's story was admittedly short. Maybe it's just me, but the main storyline took less than 20 hours on normal difficulty. The world in TW2 was smaller and more linear. On my first two playthroughs, I focused entirely on the main plot because it was SO interesting. In this game, we had more quality than quantity. This was perfect.

TW3, on the other hand, had an open world with more things to do. The main storyline alone takes 40-50 hours to complete on normal. I poured around 80 hours into the game before completing it. Sadly, Act 3 was poorly done and the endings did not provide me with satisfaction. Most quests in the previous acts involve finding one person to find another to find another to find another to find Ciri (as mentioned in the first post on this thread).

For the first 30 hours, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt was more like The Witcher 3: Hunt and Seek. There was nothing wrong with this to be honest. Despite the game feeling like Hunt and Seek, there were many memorable moments - Bloody Baron, companion side quests, Skellige main quests and side quests, etc. Just because Geralt was going on a Hunt and Seek adventure does not necessarily mean it was a bad thing.

If only Geralt's companions (Yen, Triss, Zoltan, Dandelion, etc) were utilized more in his missions, I would have enjoyed Hunt and Seek more.


CDProjektRED just left us with unsatisfying endings and I echo everything that was said about Act 3.



Thoughts?

EDIT: Don't get me started on the value of "parental decisions" in Act 3. The logic behind how certain parental actions affect certain ends is just flawed. Makes absolutely 0 sense. This was probably the worst part of TW3.

I agree with the sentiment that criticizing a game for not being faithful to its precursor is largely missing the point. Witcher 2 represented just as large a tonal shift from its predecessor as Witcher 3 did. This is not an especially convincing mark against the game. I don't see how ignoring player choices in Witcher 2 inherently makes Witcher 3 a poor game. Witcher 3 could have entirely ignored Witcher 2 and have been a perfectly good game. The problem was, Witcher 3's problems are much more deeply rooted than pleasing Witcher 2 fans or some angry-nerd rage over Triss vs Yennefer. I can't argue with any of your other points. I would say though, people keep saying the story was good until Act 3 until it went downhill. I cannot see that. From beginning to end, the story was an uninspired tale of meandering, fetching, game-y and gimmick-serving nonsense. Act 3 is only the worst part of an already very substandard story thus-far. There's something to be said about waiting in the first two acts for something to finally happen, and then in the final act, things are set in motion but fall apart into poor and rushed storytelling. Perhaps the reason why Acts 1 and 2 were so lethargic, poorly paced and meandering was that the writers knew once the story got to Ciri, it was all going downhill. All in all, Witcher 3's story is very very poor. But not exceptionally bad for the industry, unfortunately.

---------- Updated at 02:48 AM ----------

And if this were a discussion about objective truths, your point would be correct. The value of a story, however, is not a 'factual' or objective concept, and thus has to be measured by other means. As video game stories are told primarily for entertainment, it is very much a good story if most people enjoyed it and were entertained by it, and one that does not fulfill its primary goals if most people were not.

I guarantee you more people enjoyed The Cat in the Hat than Ulysses. Whether or not that makes Dr. Seuss children's story of greater value than James Joyce's masterpiece is another matter.

 

[CTPhipps]

Witcher 3 isn't a good follow up.

Which is irrelevant to whether it's a good game.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

I know this is going to be an unpopular opinion, but: the premise that the story is uninspired and disappointing is really, a criticism of the books. It is also a criticism of the developer's decision to tie the story back into the books, rather than simply telling us their own adapted yarns. Because the climax of this game is all about resolving the major unresolved plot point of the books: the White Frost and Ciri's role in that prophecy.

As somebody else pointed out, the Witcher books really have two narratives. The human narrative that is interesting and compelling, and the fantasy narrative that is not very interesting or compelling at all. And this holds true in the games. Geralt and his bumbling, stumbling, down on their luck friends are interesting. The Wild Hunt and the Elder Blood are not interesting.

Nothing is going to make Mary Sue Ciri saving the world from global cooling a particularly inspired or interesting story. You gotta take the good with the bad.

If the developers of this game made a mistake with the storytelling, it was that they went too far into the source material. Because -- and again, I know this will be unpopular -- the source material falls flat on its own face in many respects.

Well, I think the issue here is that you misinterpreted large parts of the books. Mary Sue Ciri was never meant to save the world from glabal cooling in the books. The books ended ON PURPOSE before anything of that could come into place and they ended ON PURPOSE the way they ended.

The fantasy bits of the game (Elder Blood and such) also cannot be seperated from the human narrative - the human narrative only exists because of the fantasy bits. They are the basic motives of the saga, the reason to be, the goal to pursue. They don't have to be interesting in themselves as concepts. They serve as context and challenge for the interesting human narrative.

And for what it's worth, the Wild Hunt doesn't have a really prominent role in the books. They are very much side characters for the stuff that happens in the books.

So don't search the failure in Sapkowski's books. If anybody messed it up it was CDPR. But of course the reason is connected with the books nevertheless because they ended in the very "right" moment. They left the "big rest" to the reader's own imagination. The books are well constructed the way they are. The mistake CDPR did was that they wanted to spin their leitmotif further without really knowing how and without having at least the writing skill of somebody of Sapkowski's level. Sapkowski knew pretty well where he had to end his books and there's a reason to it.

 

[ivashanko]

I guarantee you more people enjoyed The Cat in the Hat than Ulysses. Whether or not that makes Dr. Seuss children's story of greater value than James Joyce's masterpiece is another matter.

I have two responses to this: first, that it isn't the total number of people, it is the total percentage of people who read the works.

Secondly, and far more importantly, is that Ulysses' purpose was not primarily (or, at the very least, not only) to entertain, so the goalposts are radically different. If the Witcher 3 was written for a purpose other than to entertain (perhaps to portray a realistic situation of sexism) then it can be judged on those qualities as well. Indeed, whether or not the Witcher 3 is a cohesive or realistic story is up to debate, but whether or not it effectively lives up to its primarily goal is determined by the percentage of people enjoyed it.

That is why I stressed that a video game's story is primarily for entertainment. Its value is based on enjoyment, and rarely anything deeper.

 

[inanimate_object]

Well, I think the issue here is that you misinterpreted large parts of the books. Mary Sue Ciri was never meant to save the world from glabal cooling in the books. The books ended ON PURPOSE before anything of that could come into place and they ended ON PURPOSE the way they ended.

The fantasy bits of the game (Elder Blood and such) also cannot be seperated from the human narrative - the human narrative only exists because of the fantasy bits. They are the basic motives of the saga, the reason to be, the goal to pursue. They don't have to be interesting in themselves as concepts. They serve as context and challenge for the interesting human narrative.

And for what it's worth, the Wild Hunt doesn't have a really prominent role in the books. They are very much side characters for the stuff that happens in the books.

So don't search the failure in Sapkowski's books. If anybody messed it up it was CDPR. But of course the reason is connected with the books nevertheless because they ended in the very "right" moment. They left the "big rest" to the reader's own imagination. The books are well constructed the way they are. The mistake CDPR did was that they wanted to spin their leitmotif further without really knowing how and without having at least the writing skill of somebody of Sapkowski's level. Sapkowski knew pretty well where he had to end his books and there's a reason to it.

I firmly agree with this. Many people have, what I would call narrative illiteracy. They think that anything that is even briefly mentioned in a story has a purpose. The truth is, the entire prophecy in the novels is prominent and is mentioned by many characters in many storylines. And yet it is still unimportant. It is unimportant because the lead characters believe it to be unimportant. The defining characteristics of Ciri is her pathological rejection of responsibility. She does not believe she should be in servitude to the burdens of her birth. The girl has so many titles. Swallow, Child of the Elder Blood, Lady of the Lake, of Worlds, of Time and Space, Falka, Lion Cub of Cintra ect. And she does not identify or accept any of these. A large part of the final novel is not that the White Chill is important, but firmly the opposite. It is Ciri's choice not to try and save the world from winter that is the crux of the final act of the novel.

 

[CTPhipps]

I firmly agree with this. Many people have, what I would call narrative illiteracy. They think that anything that is even briefly mentioned in a story has a purpose. The truth is, the entire prophecy in the novels is prominent and is mentioned by many characters in many storylines. And yet it is still unimportant. It is unimportant because the lead characters believe it to be unimportant. The defining characteristics of Ciri is her pathological rejection of responsibility. She does not believe she should be in servitude to the burdens of her birth. The girl has so many titles. Swallow, Child of the Elder Blood, Lady of the Lake, of Worlds, of Time and Space, Falka, Lion Cub of Cintra ect. And she does not identify or accept any of these. A large part of the final novel is not that the White Chill is important, but firmly the opposite. It is Ciri's choice not to try and save the world from winter that is the crux of the final act of the novel.

Which makes her a fascinating character but I should point out, IA, that Ciri's rejection of her position is in large part because SHE is not important. She's just a STEP to what's important.

The Sword of Destiny which has two edges is a character that has repeatedly been useful only as the MOTHER of the Savior.

She's the Virgin Mary, less than Jesus, so to speak.

Part of what makes the Witcher 3: Wild Hunt so interesting is Ciri seizes her destiny from her future children and saves the world on her own terms.

 

[inanimate_object]

Which makes her a fascinating character but I should point out, IA, that Ciri's rejection of her position is in large part because SHE is not important. She's just a STEP to what's important.

The Sword of Destiny which has two edges is a character that has repeatedly been useful only as the MOTHER of the Savior.

She's the Virgin Mary, less than Jesus, so to speak.

Part of what makes the Witcher 3: Wild Hunt so interesting is Ciri seizes her destiny from her future children and saves the world on her own terms.

That's not interesting, that's a complete unprompted reversal of her motivations. Her character is predicated on turning away from the titles and responsibilities she is born into. Whether or not she decides to accept these eventually is not convincing if we do not see the progression. The novels accomplish this by showing Ciri's suffering at the hands of her own refusal to accept her role in the world, while Witcher 3 does none of this and promptly turns this witcher girl into a messianic savior without any motivation or lead-up.

 

[MisterKolega]

Wild Hunt plot is the problem

I think the mainstory lacks a lot because CDPR changed it's core philosophy. First of all, The Witcher 3 is:

http://www.technobuffalo.com/2015/0...ld-hunt-interview-with-the-gameplay-designer/

“We didn’t want to go too overboard and alienate people,” Monnier said. “It was really important to make Witcher 3 a standalone game.”
- CD Projekt Red’s Senior Gameplay Designer, Dominic Monnier

There's your answer why the inconsistency with the previous games and why the maturity and complexity of the narrative was toned down.

Another weak point it the lack of Eredin, Imlerith and Caranthir, in so screentime, so in characterization. Even Imlerith is a much stronger character than Eredin.

So far, the inconsistency of our choices from the previous games and the characterization of the Wild Hunt are maybe the greatest flaws of the game.
On the other hand, The Witcher 3 is no longer the fan fiction adaption of a small indie game company. It's now a mainstream product that's meant to be sold on the international gaming market for a much larger audiance. The hardcore fans are important, but CDPR just changed the course of it's company agenda and now they're trying to compete on the market with companies like EA/Ubisoft/Activison.

The Witcher 3 is mainstream Hollywood in gaming. The Witcher 3 is colorful with a lot of fast paced action and melodrama, lot of clichees, naked ass and blood. More like Game of Thrones in the gaming industries than the sequel of The Witcher 2.

 

[moonknightgog]

I think the mainstory lacks a lot because CDPR changed it's core philosophy. First of all, The Witcher 3 is:

http://www.technobuffalo.com/2015/0...ld-hunt-interview-with-the-gameplay-designer/

“We didn’t want to go too overboard and alienate people,” Monnier said. “It was really important to make Witcher 3 a standalone game.”
- CD Projekt Red’s Senior Gameplay Designer, Dominic Monnier

There's your answer why the inconsistency with the previous games and why the maturity and complexity of the narrative was toned down.

Another weak point it the lack of Eredin, Imlerith and Caranthir, in so screentime, so in characterization. Even Imlerith is a much stronger character than Eredin.

So far, the inconsistency of our choices from the previous games and the characterization of the Wild Hunt are maybe the greatest flaws of the game.
On the other hand, The Witcher 3 is no longer the fan fiction adaption of a small indie game company. It's now a mainstream product that's meant to be sold on the international gaming market for a much larger audiance. The hardcore fans are important, but CDPR just changed the course of it's company agenda and now they're trying to compete on the market with companies like EA/Ubisoft/Activison.

The Witcher 3 is mainstream Hollywood in gaming. The Witcher 3 is colorful with a lot of fast paced action and melodrama, lot of clichees, naked ass and blood. More like Game of Thrones in the gaming industries than the sequel of The Witcher 2.

This is...sad.
But yes...that line of Monnier is one of the most stupid things I have ever read.
You don't want to alienate people, and this means "fuck TW1 and 2, the target we are aiming is too stupid to understand a good plot like the one in the previous games".
Fuck that.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

I disagree with Monnier's line of thinking, I do not think it was a wise thing to do, but I understand the intent. I am sure however that CDPR would understand that as a fan of their previous games, I feel insulted and will no longer preorder their games or buy them at launch until I am certain they are up my alley and on sale (I preordered TW3 and its expansion pass, and I feel very stupid for doing so).

I didn't read the entire thread, but one point that was mentioned was how TW2 was about fighting "grey" while TW3 was about fighting "black." I don't think that's the heart of the problem. While I always prefer a storyline that is morally complex, villains can still be done well, be interesting, be intimidating, and be entertaining (like the Wild Hunt in TW1). TW3 failed at it, it had one of the most generic villains who barely appeared, and the other one was Radovid who is inconsistent with his established character, and even as a standalone was just more ridiculous than anything, as well as irrelevant considering how the game doesn't react to his death.

Great villains can and do exist (Loredo, Darth Malak, Master Li, Eredin in TW1, Sovereign from ME1, Leland from Alpha Protocol...etc) just that TW3 was so poor in that regard, it couldn't come close to having one.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

You know I pretty much despise the view that good deep stories can only be for a select audience, and nothing mainstream is ever any good. I get it why such a view exists psychologically, but it is not one of the finest moments of humankind.

The problem with the story in TW3 is not that it can be seen stand-alone, and no books/previous games are necessary for understanding. Also even though the break with continuity is very unfortunate, with such a great variety of very different outcomes of TW2 this stuff realistically had to be sacrificed, though it could be done more gracefully. TW3 story-problems are internal, and have to do with bad character development, cliched characters and over-the-top cheesy presentation, generally weak plot in certain areas, inconsistency of character psychology, motivation, and actions, and a badly done ending.

It is a very mixed bad, with some super-terrific parts somehow co-existing with completely juvenile and moronic. I had no idea it was even possible, and it is obvious that some of CDPR's writers are really good, while others are clearly sub-standard. Or the management simply lacked time and decided as usual on "good enough". None of these faults has anything to do with going mainstream. A good story is a good story because of its internal features, and not because of a size of the intended audience.

 

[Sam2305]

This is...sad.
But yes...that line of Monnier is one of the most stupid things I have ever read.
You don't want to alienate people, and this means "fuck TW1 and 2, the target we are aiming is too stupid to understand a good plot like the one in the previous games".
Fuck that.

I think the mainstory lacks a lot because CDPR changed it's core philosophy. First of all, The Witcher 3 is:

http://www.technobuffalo.com/2015/0...ld-hunt-interview-with-the-gameplay-designer/

“We didn’t want to go too overboard and alienate people,” Monnier said. “It was really important to make Witcher 3 a standalone game.”
- CD Projekt Red’s Senior Gameplay Designer, Dominic Monnier

There's your answer why the inconsistency with the previous games and why the maturity and complexity of the narrative was toned down.

Another weak point it the lack of Eredin, Imlerith and Caranthir, in so screentime, so in characterization. Even Imlerith is a much stronger character than Eredin.

So far, the inconsistency of our choices from the previous games and the characterization of the Wild Hunt are maybe the greatest flaws of the game.
On the other hand, The Witcher 3 is no longer the fan fiction adaption of a small indie game company. It's now a mainstream product that's meant to be sold on the international gaming market for a much larger audiance. The hardcore fans are important, but CDPR just changed the course of it's company agenda and now they're trying to compete on the market with companies like EA/Ubisoft/Activison.

The Witcher 3 is mainstream Hollywood in gaming. The Witcher 3 is colorful with a lot of fast paced action and melodrama, lot of clichees, naked ass and blood. More like Game of Thrones in the gaming industries than the sequel of The Witcher 2.

I couldn't agree more