My opinion on the game, six month later ...

I can't stand Geralt and therefore have never put more than 5 hours into my 3 tries of the game. Was the first game I bought for my PS4 pro.

I did not make an account on forums to bitch about the game though, so I got that going for me.

I think that animations are more important than people realize. I never mentioned the animations when I critiqued the game at first, but I tried to go back and play after the patch 1.09 and there's more difference than you realize. I didn't finish an entire playthrough, but the scene where you first arrive at the Nexus.

Where your Ryder without any emotion on her face says "He...he didn't make it"
Then Addison, emotionless expression says "Alec...is...dead." (Not the best delivered line either)
Then they pan back to your Ryder who looks like they just don't give a F---.

Seeing that scene after the patches, it comes across so much better.  It makes the original scene look so bad.

Here's a great editorial piece PC Gamer did earlier this year to explain why TW3's animations were so impressive:

www.pcgamer.com/the-witcher-3s-animators-created-7000-new-animations-in-one-year-for-the-dlc/

CDPR invested heavily into incredibly adaptive and flexible tools. It was the only way they could maintain high quality animations in an open world RPG with 100s of hours of gameplay. Most AAA studios would not have the funding to be able to invest as much into animation as CDPR did. It's part of the reason why CDPR is in a league of its own, because it has GOG to support its financial endeavors.

I never claimed CDPR has "some kind of a bottomless well of cash." Those are your words, not mine.

What you do have to realize, which you apparently don't, is the cost of living in Poland is far cheaper than in Canada, and TW3 had double the budget that MEA had. TW3 had an $81 million budget, versus the $40 million budget MEA had to work with. Besides the cost of living differences, the way EA distributes money to its various developers is different from CD Projekt Group giving money to CDPR.

EA provides BioWare, as a whole, with a budget for all of its games. That means that the General Manager of BioWare (now Casey Hudson), has to divide that budget among the three BioWare studios (now two since Montreal has been mostly dissolved). Between SWTOR, Anthem, and Dragon Age 4, MEA was only able to afford a budget of $40 million, and this is with that 5-year dev cycle being included.

CD Projekt Group, on the other hand, only has two studios, with one really being a complementary studio to the main CDPR. Thus, it's far easier for CD Projekt Group to funnel in a lot more money and resources into one project, rather than have to worry about dividing money between various studios and various projects. I haven't even brought up the fact that RedEngine (now the fourth iteration for Cyberpunk 2077) is custom-built for CDPR games, whereas Frostbite is really only built for Battlefield. That requires even more money and time on BioWare's part to work with an engine not designed for their games.

CDPR is simply in a situation where it can funnel more resources and money into a single project than any other developer on the planet. The only other studio that I can think of with this kind of financial freedom would be Bethesda Game Studios under ZeniMax Inc. They are also able to get away with a lot because ZeniMax is a privately-traded corporation, and not publicly-traded like Electronic Arts, Ubisoft, Activision, etc. Another example would be Rockstar Games, because Take-Two lets them do whatever they want.

Unlike you who played TW3 on the back end, I played TW3 before MEA and TW3 really raised the bar in terms of telling a mature story, NPCs, open world, and side quest. MEA failed to compare.

You are not alone, TW3 is seen by many as the measuring stick for a quality open world RPG.

This is why I use TW3 and HZD as counter-examples every time the "open world means bad story/RPG/game" meme pops up. Stop blaming the style and start blaming the writers/devs for poor execution.

I also had the benefit of playing the GOTY edition of TW3, with everything patched and DLC included. I heard that game was buggy at launch as well, so it's to my benefit that I waited. I pre-ordered ME:A and played on release, last time I will do that with any game. 

Pewdiepie might have thrown the figure out there, but I can guarantee you the rumor preceded his proclamation of Andromeda's budget. Even if the $40 million budget was somehow off, there's definitely no way that Andromeda had as much money to work with as TW3 did.

Not to sidetrack the discussion about The Witcher lore, but Geralt is a witcher. Supposedly, after going through the Trial of Grasses, the mutations cause witcher apprentices to lose their emotions. Geralt's personality, which is actually far more dynamic than you give him credit, is supposed to represent this stereotype that witchers aren't really human, and do not exhibit human emotions. What you'll actually find is that Geralt has an incredibly dry sense of humor and is constantly pointing out the hypocrisies of others. Of course, if you've barely played TW3, let alone its two predecessors, I understand why you know next to nothing about Geralt.

"I don't see any emotion on Geralt"

Yeah, he's a witcher, he's supposed to be free of emotions. Geez, people are ignorant about the lore and they blame the game on it, besides the game having a lot of codex and books explaining all these things.

Why is loosing emotions considered not to be human?
Is this the sterotype to which you speak?
If it is then we got a serious problem here.

For I doubt anyone here has spent 20+ years just trying to understand the wide range of emotions.
The worst phase for me growing up was "tears of joy" -Yes. Very early on I thought anyone crying was happy.
It took about the first 10 of those years to finally begin to notice tears mean sadness... knowledge that came to me -at great hardship and cost though.
Only after 10 years and by use of psychoanalyzing my family over and over after spouts of verbal hurt -till they cried after which I asked: "Why they were crying?".
Only through this experimentation did I even begin to understand the sad emotions and by that fact begin to know the opposite positive emotions as well.
By the way most jokes take me about 4-7 times of hearing and analyzing before I understand them or their punchline.

So for me to just play or watch a character with little to no emotion being displayed on screen is now a bore.
For me there is nothing there to that character emotionally to understand that I don't already know.
I played the first TW and have watched video of the 2nd and 3rd.
The same with humor -laughing at something comical ok -if I can understand it- but most humor I just don't get either.
So if someone has as you say has dry humor -I really don't see it and get bored quick -which is probably why I simply don't care for him.
Again as said before I don't see emotion very well -so when someone displays emotion such as me -it bores me -in this case Geralt.
So IF it is true that Geralt has some definition to his personality then I can't see it.
To me he is just as flat as I am to all others emotionally.

I am not blaming the lore and nor am I being ignorant.
You simply miss the point I am making.
Sure the withcher series may have lore to back it up and all the rigamarow to go with it but you forget the premise of my post -which you took out of context by the way.

In the case I am making the lore has no place.
It based on one fact and one fact alone:
Main character's display of emotion.
Which is that Shepard and Ryder -who are BOTH main characters of a franchise both TRY to show emotion -no matter how buggy it may be for you.
Geralt who is also the main character of a franchise simply does not hardly show emotion -if at all.

Again I know there is lore for this -on both sides probably.
My issue is that I can't play a game where the main character shows the same basic emotion response as myself.

As to dialog don't really care one way or another.
Dialog is just filler to plot and plot takes backseat till the whole story is revealed and there is still books

in the wings so can't say a word to it till all are read.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Whether you want to think Geralt's as interesting as a wooden plank or otherwise, the only opinion that should matter to you in the end is yours.

Regardless, I think it is worthy to point out the fact that Geralt is despised and ridiculed by most humans. He is treated as a "freak," in most cases, and many will simply avoid him out of fear or hatred. Geralt's experiences are supposed to highlight how truly disgusting and ugly humans can be, and Geralt's "coldness," at times, could be interpreted as apathy and disgust for his fellow man.

Some will like Geralt. Others won't care for him. Personally, he resonated with me. One of the ironies of the trilogy is Geralt is probably one of the most human characters in the games. He sees the ugliness of reality, but he doesn't let it define him and he doesn't let it compromise his moral compass either.