1-The last act being underwhelming in general and pulling off a deus ex machina and dealing with it with a nonsensical "Ciri is the chosen one all along!" instead of having Avallac'h actually betraying her so the decision of Ge'els of betraying Eredin when it means his people are doomed because of it would make sense.
2- Eredin and the Wild Hunt, the main nemesis of Geralt and Ciri, being criminally underdeveloped.
Yes, it is more or less generally accepted that the final act could have used some more work, and the Wild Hunt being under-developed might be partly the result of the same issue (since they would have had more quest content there before some cuts were made). Although I suspect even in a fully finished game, Eredin would not have been a particularly complex antagonist, but he could have been about at the level of Dettlaff at least.
3- The game doesn't criticize your actions as much as in the previous games, whatever Geralt chooses the game mostly would not mind, even Ciri does not mind if he chooses Triss over Yennefer.
There are several actions in the game that can have negative consequences, the bad ending being an obvious example. And Ciri does mind to some extent, even if not necessarily as much as you would like, but it is not unrealistic for her game character.
4- Too few pure Yen/Ciri moments, as Ciri was closer to Yennefer than Geralt himself in the books.
The games are different from the books, they tell the story from Geralt's point of view and focus on his interactions with NPCs. There is just not much interaction shown between NPCs in general, and Ciri and Yennefer are no exception to this.
5- Ciri being way too diluted when compared to her book-self.
Of course, she is not the same as in the books, in the game you see how CDPR imagined she would be like after growing up and after the events that happened between the books and games, but whether that is a good or bad thing is subjective.
6- Oversimplified politics from a complex situation to a "Mad Rad Redania burning mages and nonhumans" vs "Lesser Evil Nilfgaard" conflict.
To be fair to the game, I do not think it was ever promised to be about complex politics, it is more of a personal story intended to be the end of Geralt's saga.
8- Lack of actual puzzles in the game when compared to Witcher 2's puzzles.
That is a fair point, although The Witcher 2 might be the exception here, since as far as I can remember, there weren't that many puzzles or riddles in the first game, either. Wild Hunt does also rely too much on the Witcher Senses, but more as a storytelling device than something that has anything to do with puzzles or problem solving.
9- The Points of Interest and loot were mostly forgettable and the time spent into them should have been used in the last act of the main story instead.
Many of those POIs were added very late in the development, and they required much less resources (especially in terms of voice acting, cutscenes, etc., all the expensive "cinematic" stuff) than adding more main quests would have. Adding one more smugglers' cache or monster nest to the map is only a minor work.
11- The focus on the romances, I don't mind having "muh waifus" in videogames, but not when they start potentially taking away from the main story at hand, even Hearts of Stone suffered from this.
Relative to the size of the game, I doubt there is significantly (if at all) more focus on romances than in The Witcher 1. And with TW3 being the end of Geralt's story and with its more "personal" focus, it was perhaps not too unreasonable to devote a few percents of the content to his relationships. Which also do not take away from the main story, unless you mean it in the sense of "the resources could have been better spent on something else", but then the same could also have been said of a lot of other things.
Of course, "real" Ciri would go medieval on Geralt's ass if he'd dump Yennefer (no matter if she's 17, 21 or 121 years old), but I didn't seriously expect them (for obvious reasons) to stay THAT faithful to the lore.
If there are obvious reasons, perhaps they can be proven with a link to an interview, developer post, or something like that ? So far, I have only seen developer posts claiming that Ciri's portrayal has nothing to do with romances. Also, Ciri becoming independent is an important part of the game. However, that works both ways, she demands her independence to be respected, but she also does the same to Geralt, which I see as a positive trait of her character. Thus, I think her responses to the romance choices (she is happier about Yennefer, but she does not want to interfere with Geralt's personal affairs, which is realistic for an adult who no longer lives together with her parents) are consistent with her general portrayal in the game.
Somewhat better example would be no one (Yen, Ciri, Triss, Zoltan, Dandelion...) having anything to say about Geralt's possible participation in the assassination plot. Some of them can comment on his HoS scar, though...:teeth:
They comment on the scar because Geralt asks them, and it is something they can easily see on his face. Not sure if he ever shares with any of them during the time frame of the game that he takes part in a secret conspiracy to assassinate a king, at least I do not recall that being shown on screen.
Even funnier, in "bad ending+Yen romance" scenario, Geralt & Yen cheerfully planing out their retirement at Corvo Bianco like nothing interesting happened at the end of the main game. :lol:
That scene is at least a year after the ending of the main game, if not more. While it may look odd the way it is presented in the game, at some point they do have to stop mourning and move on. That, or they actually know that Ciri is alive, too, it is just not shown to the player because it is meant to be a surprise for the next game. :shuriken:
also the Reasons of State quest was barely completed, even the city does not give a crap if Rad the Mad dies, the saviour of the North in their eyes that is, but an additional scar on Geralt's face? Oh that is really important to talk about!
It is told after the ending of the game that the world is in the state it was in before the final chapter. While it may look like a lazy solution, it explains why the "post-ending" world does not show any consequences to the endings, they only affect the epilogues. Of course, it is another matter that Blood and Wine breaks that explanation. Also, adding a few lines about Geralt's mark is less work by far than making the entire world of the game properly represent the different political outcomes.
Incredible how the impact of genuinely touching scene at Crookback Bog can be retroactively ruined. :wallbash:
Just wait until the next game comes out and confirms that Ciri survives the bad ending, too (assuming she is planned to be the protagonist, not that I find that particularly desirable), and she ends up being a witcher no matter what. So much about meaningful choices and impactful consequences.
Agreed, Geralt surviving his own suicide, hahaha
It was not actually shown as suicide even before Blood and Wine, his fate was left open to interpretation. Even the journal says at the end of that epilogue that
"What happened then, you ask? That, my dear reader, is another story altogether". But confirming it in a DLC that he is alive does make the "bad" ending weaker, and doing the same with Ciri in a sequel would make it pretty much meaningless.