I though Hearts of Stone was the best DLC I have played ever. I was heavily invested in liking Blood and Wine just as much and early in the game it did seem every bit as compelling as HofS.
But after that the game just literally fell apart.
Why?
1) Was it the asset and worldspace designers? No …. Extraordinarily good worlspace and asset design and implementation.

2) Was it the monster design, animation and variety? No … Again fantastic
3) Was it the balance and combat design and variety? This needs a patch or 2 but still great
4) Costume design? No again fantastic
5) Microstory, dialog, writing and voice acting? No … Top quality

So where did the game fall apart?

Sadly this DLC fell apart at the very highest level …. Top level story design and implementation. This means that there is probably no way to fix it without doubling the effort put into this DLC.

In essence it was like 3 different teams wrote BandW and then the top level story designer tried to fit the three pieces together and noticed that they didn’t fit, but released the game anyway,.

The story overarching story dragged the whole DLC down so badly I couldn’t even finish it and I played almost to the finish on both storylines. I desperately tried to steer the main quest in some direction that wasn’t so profoundly ridiculous but there was no steering wheel.

I think it may be time for CDProjectRed to release full modding tools. The things someone with vision could do with those assets. If the devs wanted to keep W3 going as long as Skyrim they could clear out the witcher gameworld of quests and monsters, leave most of the population in place and give modders a blank palate to create in.

Feel free to insult me but I did happily finish HofS and named it the best DLC ever.

Why, would insulting you make you think twice about your statement?

Funny in a way, because my personal experience in the game tells me the exact opposite: HoS done two thirds of the story with no desire to finish this ever again - B&W grand, just grand!

In B&W even the unstoppable sequences did not bother me.
But - each to her/his own, just forget about the insulting stuff - or, if you like this better, feel yourself be sufficiently insulted.

I agree with zerebrush; my view is the polar opposite to yours: Blood and Wine is *far* superior in every way to Hearts of Stone.

Could you give us examples of how exactly did story in Blood and Wine fall apart, exactly? I loved and still love Hearts of Stone, but it felt more 'all over the place' than Blood and Wine. Blood and Wine, on the other hand, was a masterpiece, especially the main story - in a way that Witcher 3's main storyline should have been. Just as an example, Blood and Wine will only reward you with best ending if you explore and remain perceptive, whereas Witcher 3's main campaign often sort of arbitrarily decides based on story decisions which consequences you could have not predicted.

SPOILERS SPOILER SPOILERS

From the OP

Ok ... I will give it a shot

First, up to the point to the end of the "spoon collector" quest I thought that the story and implementation was interesting and compelling. Up to this point there weren’t really even any signs of trouble. The voice acting and setup was superb.

I call this the first third and I have nothing but praise for it.

The second third had some compelling combat moments and atmosphere, but then the story just splintered under the weight of its own crazy logic. Detlaff is close to being a demigod and the game explicitly states this. The whole kidnapping story just doesn't work despite many lines of dialog trying to force it to work.

Then comes the whole ..... Detlaff is going to destroy the whole dutchy to get access to one women who he had in his hands 10 minutes ago. Then there is the fact that Geralt is not allowed the choice to kill Aryana sister at this point. What is her life against the 10000 who die later. Geralt butchers about 1000 people in this game, but is not given this choice. Then there is Arianna crazy illogical behavior, why wouldn’t she let Detlaff talk to her if it would save the whole Dutchy? If Detalff wanted her dead he would have already done it. How can it be that Detlaff doesn't know where Arianna sister is hiding? His Ravens are everywhere. How can he not smell her out? How can he not just walk right in and kill her and Arianna if he had the slightest desire to.

Next comes the single choice and single branch point in the whole story.. “The Elder or the Storybook"
I was so tired of the Duchy at this point I chose the Elder despite the warnings …. This resulted in some exceptional worldspace design but ended in Geralt one on one with a demigod in a final combat battle. The ridiculousness of this is self evident. That I almost beat the demigod is tribute to how badly this part was thought out. In the end I said forget this so reload and back to Arianna’s sister plot branch.

This branch could have been incredibly interesting but it came out incredibly dull and contrived. First and foremost Geralt was forced to be chummy with someone who my Geralt wouldn’t choose to and again the option wasn’t there to end her life on sight. If Geralt could have chosen this all the combat in fairyland would have been appropriate. It made no sense and was superfluous when Geralt was chummy with Anyana. This part could have been glorious but instead it was just a series of contrived monster battles. Fighting the witch was interesting but there should have been a non-death option. Jack was OK but my patience was being tried at this point. Then came the wolf which could have had some hilarious outcomes all wasted…. Just another battle. That’s the point where I couldn’t be bothered to play because I didn’t care about the ending any more.

Then comes another question …. Anyana murders her previous tormentors via Detlaff, why didn’t she just get “found” again so Detlaff would give up his search so everyone could just walk away. She’s a bright tricky girl.

But in the end it all comes down to “Do you empathize with Aryana enough to forget about the consequences of her actions?”. If you don’t the entire second half of the game becomes a pointless slog. If you don’t empathize much with Anianna then it becomes even more of a slog. Detlaffs idiocy doesn’t help much either.

This DLC was a car with no steering wheel …. It just wasn’t satisfying. Nothing that Geralt could do was compelling.

You insist that there should have been a non-death option fighting the witch, yet you notice that Geralt butchered thousands people and should be able to kill even major story characters.

You confuse real time with game time by saying "Detlaff is going to destroy the whole dutchy to get access to one women who he had in his hands 10 minutes ago."

You don't know the ending, never played to the end, actually.

What would you estimate the chance is that you misread some subtle part of the story, too?

ALSO SPOILEEEEERS Actually, the game doesn't say that vampires are demigods per se - just that they can't be killed and can shapeshift. I think a lot of the trouble you have with the game is attributing far more power to them than they actually possess. It's also important to establish that Detlaff did not act like an idiot out of bad writing, Detlaff is an idiot with way too much power sort of on purpose. Yup. During the scene where they meet at first, Regis clearly states that Detlaff didn't wish to act rashly. That's an important distinction you need to make - Detlaff didn't want the act of killing Syanna to be done in thoughtless rage he was in at the moment, he wanted to step aside for some time and think about it. By that point, it's already been established that a higher vampire doesn't really have problems with killing people, even a lot of them, as they don't mean anything to such a vampire. His threat of destroying the city was no more than to us would be a threat of stepping on some ants, but he did know city has an importance for both Anna and Syanna. Detlaff also clearly stated that if Syanna doesn't show up, he'll fulfill his threat. How would Geralt killing her help anyone? Well... Yes. You might note that people don't always act rationally. You know, even in real life they don't. Anna lived her entire life in an environment where everything she ever wanted or needed happened exactly as she wanted. She doesn't understand meaning of the words "no" or "it can't be done". Things are either to her will or heads roll. And suddenly, she met a being far more powerful than she is. Regis explained, at one point, that every higher vampire has an ability of sorts which sets them apart from other higher vampires. Only Regis could talk to and influence animals. Detlaff could control lower vampires, the ravens weren't his. Additionally, Syanna wasn't hidden in normal space - she was tucked away somewhere where even magical powers wouldn't help him track her down. And lastly, he was very clear on what would happen if she fails to show - he didn't say that he'd find her or kill Anna, he said he'll attack the city. So that's what he did. First of all, you did not beat a demigod as Higher Vampires are not even close to the power, say, Gaunter O'Dimm had. Secondly, even in the Witcher novels there's a precedent of a human beating a vampire in combat and that precedent is very clearly mentioned early on into the story. And thirdly, even after finishing that battle, said demigod is not actually dead, just beaten. The only clear rule the game has established has not been broken - only a higher vampire can kill a higher vampire. Really? Do you realize Syanna was basically Ciri? So that Detlaff never stops destruction of the city? Well... Again, the game made it quite clear that the fairly land is lacking maintenance. It's literally broken and doesn't work the way it should. 5 vices. That's supposed to be 5 bodies. Detlaff only killed 4. She didn't get found because she didn't want to get found yet, Geralt surprised her. Actually, you don't have to empathize with Syanna at all. For as long as Detlaff is a thread, Syanna is needed to live, but not after that. Geralt always has judgmental responses to her and one of the endings is that Syanna does end up getting killed.

I am disappointed from both while Blood & Wine is the horror - Hdr / yellow effect, disaster. The entire story, eh,.. they changed ''mickey mouse land''...into a nightmare,..it's so out of touch everything,..they should rather stop with those DLC's, or if they are already making them, they should at least focus on main actors,...which are lacking in content, dialogues,.. The Witcher has a very well written story, main actors,...I think BioWare would make even a better game out of it as CD Projekt, which waste tons of potential on pointless stand alone side quests, which is the main game full already.

Yes, instead of creating side-quests, Bioware would spend that time and energy in order for Geralt to be able to also romance Zoltan, Dandelion and Roach.

LOL. Well done...

I partially agree, but Witcher 3 is lacking main actors content; dialogues, options,... In this category is Bioware way ahead, if we look Dragon Age Origins, the Witcher 3 is not even close to make main actors so interesting, useful, fun,.. In this category, the same as in decision-making and consequences Bioware makes better stuff. In fact, if you are new to the Witcher series and start playing The Witcher 3, as far you don't google some background about main actors,..they are so interesting as a random blacksmith.

1) This.

2) Bioware writing doesn't operate with people, it operates with caricatures. It always had, ever since Baldur's Gate games. They take fantasy tropes and stereotypes, emphasize their main traits into superhuman proportions and muddle it all up in pretty decent writing.

The Witcher operates with people. It takes tropes and stereotypes and instead of highlighting their traits, it subverts them, humanizes them, makes them mundane, but a lot more relatable. That's exceptional and sublime writing, but it's not as easy to see - especially since yes, to fully appreciate the characters, you need to have read 5 books and played 3 games.

Still, no Bioware game has ever replicated such honest and heartfelt scenes as the wedding in Hearts of Stone, Geralt sitting and talking in the evening with Regis in Blood and Wine, Witchers getting wasted together or, hell, a snowball fight between Geralt and Ciri.

3) Witcher 3 is so much larger than, say, Dragon Age: Origins. You might not care about side-quests, but they were some of the best content on offer in Witcher 3. And personally, I found the main questline in W3 a bit too long and I'd appreciate it being cut a bit shorter.

I think you're right there. :D

Blood & Wine, Hearts of Stone are standalone, they have nothing to do with the main actors, story or or whatever. The main game is full of such content already, in my opinion The Witcher 3 does not need even more unrelated stuff. When you are by reflecting main actors personalities,... this depends from the story. The Witcher is based on a book,..where all this is already written and CD projekt makes a bad job to reflect main actors history, stories,...we can debate this forever, but it makes no sense if you can't see, that a game fail a lot in certain segments, as far you need to google main actors history,...to make any sense out of actors, to become interesting,..