There is no design failure here, the game is easy to move around and explore at any level... fights with mobs 5/6 levels or even higher can get quite challenging (but if you end up in those fights, it was "your choice" (I played DA:I through once, the game is an exercise in boredom and repetitive bland content... the world of DA:I is mostly beautiful),This game however offers plenty of near level content (the Large explorable world offers re-playability with superb story driven quests and side content for a large fleshed out world... no need to do everything the first time through the game at all). I loved the fact that I could enter an area and be confronted with mobs that made me run squealing like a little girl (I'll be back) or attack blindly only to find out the monster was very very angry with me and I was going to die :D. Like an MMO ? yes they're both games and share similar creative paths, that is all. This game is more/less like an old school format in difficulty and reward, which is good ... had an MMO had this level of quality for exploration and story, it would be a major major global success. All I get really from your post is a level of dislike based on personal preference... then trying to justify that preference, by saying the game design is flawed, a subjective comment (don't ever play Demon Souls 1/2).

TW3 can keep you on your toes more or less, if you want to push forward and explore and challenge. The side quest stories are nothing but superb. There are issues, but mostly minor, if I bagged this game for that, I would end up hating gaming in general, all games have this issue (the sky is not falling when it happens). For the record I did not hate TW2 nor did I fall in love with its design (it was a beautiful game in its own right, still is), I played TW2 through once on normal, and had no desire to play it again, badly designed? no, it wasn't... just not for me... I'm so glad this game is not exactly TW2 to be honest. Could this game have better PC control and bindings? yes... is it alone in not providing that level of accessibility? no (I mentioned Dark Souls, DS1 had the most horrendous PC game controls I have ever seen in a game, yet it went on to be a cult classic with good sales... go figure). Also at the moment I have started a heavy armoured (rather then light) Geralt as a swordsman (rather then as a Warlock) as I wait for fix for a constant load loop on the quest King's Gambit, siding with Cerys ... I'm not going to bag the game, shit happens, especially with a game with this level of code complexity. Expectations for this game are out of control and a little bizarre at times, as those with even computers that resemble toasters try to run it. If you want a more main story oriented game? then stop leaving the critical path so much.

i totally disagree, there is not one fetch quest like "get me 10 flowers" or some shit like that.
The quests all tell stories and they re-visit different characters like the bloody baron, or the pellar.
It is far from MMORPG.
If you want to see how terrible a great rpg can be made due to mmorpg elements then go play dragon age: inquisition.

HOWEVER i personally would not have needed open world either.
I was totally fine with the way that the witcher 1 and 2 handled things.
Also i feel like the world is a little bigger than i needs but, but is made small again by the fact that you can run and ride very very fast.
The world feels a lot smaller than what i thought it would be after the trailers and pictures of the map.
It is still gigantic though, so no real need to complain.

But there are design flaws. Skilled fencer, who regained his memory and was retrained (again), suddenly could be beaten by a bag of Portland cement. He knows nothing, he got no decent gear, despite you leaving him with a lot of shiny stuff (sold all that and spent coin on booze and women). But ignoring gear, having incapable "one of world's best fencer" is kinda stupid from narrative point of view - while on paper he could be great, in reality he is wimp. Many games suffer from this syndrome, take Mass Effect 1, where uber-kommando Shepard had no skills at all, had an armour that could be punctured with a finger in many places, and everywhere with a screwdrivers, and had a gun so accurate it was impossible to hit broad side of barn while standing inside the barn. In ME1 (as well as many other games) you had a chance to start "new game+" where your characters would retain everything, allowing gameplay to support narration. And no, I don't think that having developed character somehow lessens the experience. Quite the contrary, it enriches it. Geralt is monster slayer, not scavenger or thief, who steals people belongings, grabbing every plate, pipe, mug, broken oar, and slice of bread. He shouldn't have to carry three dozen of swords he looted from dead bodies. In this aspect Witcher 1 was much better designed, you carried only alchemical components, potions, and small assortment of other useful items.
Combat-wise Witcher 3 is also far from perfect, starting from control input lag accompanied by very odd collision model, and rare case of key-binding reset, which together turn Geralt into concussed turtle, that stumbles upon everything, and at times does strange thing, like sheathing swords in the middle of the fight or after a dodge, just because you put dodge on "C", but somehow games forgot about that after you load save. For a game that demands so much from player, existing controls problems are bit too excessive. So freedom of movement is quite illusory. Even on global map - in theory you can go anywhere, but paths are covered by carefully placed enemies of various levels, basically confining your path into rather corridor-alike. If course, at times you can bypass them through woods or along the water line, but it's not exactly FREEDOM!:)
Skill system also odd and makes little sense. Of course, number of skillpoints one may have is limited, but the way it's presented, is strange. Say you don't want to maximize few skills but have more, less developed skills. And what would you have: you could either parry arrows, or fiddle with people brains through Axii. That's odd, because if you can do something, you can do that. It's not like "I dump cooking for ploughing". I don't understand the idea of this skill system's introduction as mitigation of Geralt being overpowered. But he is overpowered, he is specially designed mutant, created to fight threats no ordinary human can. Vilgefortz is difficult opponent for him, not some common lowly bandits.
I don't mention alchemy system that also makes little sense, both books wise, and logic and gameplay too.
As usual, there are many opinions like that, but this one is mine. :)

Fetch quests can also be "Go there, get that, come back". So basically going to "Investigate" something in a pre-determined place and then going back to the quest giver. Back and forth.. Or go there, talk to that person, come back.. Or, go there "Follow trails" and kill monster, and go back. I mean the contracts aren't too bad, and the story does help the quests a ton. But with the MMORPG factors already in place, that just feels like extra busywork...
And saying that they are not fetch quests is stretching things. It's not grinding monsters yes, but "Go there, do that, come back" feel like most MMORPG quest (Especially considering how many of those you do.). But those quests themselves were well done.. Just saying to put pressure on the fact that it's similar to a MMORPG.

Dragon Age Inquisition was a flop, yes. It's far shittier then Witcher 3, yes. But that doesn't mean that Witcher isn't carved out of the same material. It is well put together, just that the material itself is uncomfortable to anyone who has played MMORPGs for a long time.. And to me it really feels like a huge step backward considering that the level system feels like CDPR couldn't manage to put together a proper progression system without resorting to a silly MMORPG level system.

So any rpg ever only consists of fetch quests and has mmorpg elements.
Pretty much anything you and RudyLis have criticized can be found in the witcher 1 and 2 aswell, along other issues.
All of it either has always been there or is simply a matter of oppinion, so i don't really see how we could discuss it any further.

It sounds an awful lot like you just don't like open-world RPGs. Pretty much every RPG ever made has gated progression based on level (except Morrowind and Oblivion, where you could finish the game at level 10 if you had levelled the right skills), it's simply that the story dictates that you will hit each area at an appropriate level.

The Witcher 3 feels like an MMORPG where you don't have to deal with other players and the quests are about telling a short story rather than just supplying your character with enough XP to level up. Personally I like the direction the series has been moving, but it obviously sucks if you don't like how a series you enjoy is changing. CDPR are never going to be able to please everyone, but minor bugs aside, they have delivered exactly what they promised. TW3 was literally marketed as an open-world RPG. The problems you have with it are inherent to that genre, so you might want to avoid similar titles in future.

The decisions the developers made regarding game design can only be assessed as bad or good based on market reception, not whether an individual person agrees with them. If TW3 sales tank they'll know they've made a mistake, but that seems unlikely based on its critical reception so far.

In terms of practical advice, try only doing the side quests that appeal to you. I've put in 40+ hours to hit level 15 and I feel significantly over-levelled because I've been doing all the side quests. The witcher contracts tend to offer the most gold and xp compared to the amount of time required to complete them, with the bonus of a mini boss-fight and a unique bestiary entry at the end of each.

I can't remember it being marketed as a "level-gated openworld game". And i beg to differ that it is NOT level inherent to an open world.
1. This game is based around zones. And an MMORPG system in this game was not a necessary evil that we had to go to. It's standard practice designing the zones so that zones are for certain levels. And if you want to add high level monsters in some places, you can do that but those shouldn't be anywhere in the main areas and they shouldn't be in a village they you'll need to run through for some low level quests.

2. Those MMORPG aspects get in the way of story and gameplay. Getting in the way of immersion with its game mechanics. Furthermore having quests that you can't do until you go into a different area and come back.. How about you don't give out quests until we reach within 10 levels of that quest before they give it to us.. it's pretty much like "Please come and save us", wait for 5 months before you level up and they are still alive, doing w.e.. Weapons that you can't use for no good reason. You got the weapon how about you use it? If you get an equipment piece after beating a high level monster, how about I get rewarded for that?

3. Open world games don't need to have a MMORPG level system (And by that I mean that you will run into high level monsters you can't kill, that there's equipment you can't use, etc.). Look at Dark Souls, Skyrim, Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordor, Dark Souls 2, Dragons Dogma, etc. All of them had level progression systems, but none of them had high level monsters that you couldn't take down no matter what or were designed so that you would never run into the occasion when something is literally impossible (All of those games had a character level progression with an open world, but they didn't have arbitrary levels for monsters.).
You would actually be surprised that in fact there are not too many single-player games with those same MMORPG level systems (By that I mean that monsters have levels, there's level restrictions on weapons, and when you could be put into a posiiton where you can't win cause of level requirements).. Dragon Age Inquisition is one, Gothic 3 (I've read it has that going, but haven't played it myself.).. And I can't really think of any others.

There's a lot of games with level progression, not as much with monsters who have levels above their heads, with quests and monsters that you can't kill, until you "Come back later" and equipment that you can't use until you get to a certain level. I see that a lot of games don't do that, and with good reason. At the end of the day CDPR did themselves a disservice for adding that system in, as that system was made without caring for the immersion of the player.. And at the same time they crafted this awesome world, with brilliant stories, lore, characters that begs to be immersed into.

4. You're the second guy who says "You don't seem to like Open world games".. Well with this message I already explained that these systems aren't a "Must" for an open-world game and for the most part games keep away from this kind of a system with good reason as levels are something that makes it a lot easier for developers to balance content that they want us to do and that they don't want us to do. So that system is actually there to add linearity to the game. Which I feel they could have done with good enough zone design (In terms of levels.). For example if you go off the main tracks you can find a drake that you shouldn't be able to beat (I use "Main track" assuming for example that Witcher 3 had a better area progression where you primarly are at villages that are your level or slightly above your level range.). What if you beat it and get a sword for it that you can now use? It's OP yes, but does the player have the choice to NOT use that weapon? Yes he does. Would he get that weapon if he was a "Normal gamer"? Most likely not as it would be a risk..

I don't mind a good MMORPG system, and I love open world games. But it was a downgrade from Witcher 2 "for the sake" of having a bigger world (And I hope I did explain why that system was actually not necessary for open world games.). There were bad decisions with the system. Ultimately it did bring out a good game, but those limitations get in the way of it being "perfect" and immersive.

So there is not really a hard level requirement of 33 for this armor like the OP says, but it is just harder on lower levels? That would be alright with me.

Dudes....please....Witcher 3 is not a western style RPG and I would strongly suggest getting over it. It is done in a way it is done and as I stated before, this is not a bad design decision but just a decision.

1. I have no idea what high level monster you speak of near low level villages. I spent too much in this game already. I did not notice any problems. Monsters which are 2-3 levels higher than your Witcher are not really a problem. There is no situation in which you have a killer monster just next to your low level zone. Even if I did miss something or didn't pay attention, this is something different and it reminds you that the world is dangerous place. This is not a care bear game.

2. This is going backtracking is very important. You will understand why when you discover who is the king of Pontar. If you do not know the answer, you didn't play the game long enough to understand this backtracking. I will just tell you that the decisions you make in White Orchard will haunt you in Novigrad. Think of that.
You want reward for beating a high level monsters? This is Velen and Novigrad. You want a reward? FU! Thats how the cruel world is. I am cool with that.

3. The biggest mistake CDPR made was advertising this game as open-world. It is kind of Open-World with HUUUGEEE zones, however, this forces people to play the game in a certain way and sets a certain, Skyrim-like, expectations. This is a bad marketing decision.

4. This is a very subjective opinion. That Drake thing you mentioned? I found a basilisk that decimated me. Still didn't cry. I will kick his butt later.

Not having the ability to apply oil to weapons during combat. Gives an unfair trail and error aspect to the game. Yet we can swap and change potions and other items at will?

Combat feels clunky. Weapons strikes clipping through enemies?. Especially the higher level, red labeled enemies. You have to flee, even though you may have powerful weapons. An enemy that's only 4-5 levels above you is impossible to kill. RIDICULOUS!

I will never understand why people will complain about the fact that they cannot walk anywhere at all times, just like in the real world, instead of just enjoying the game.
Once you get to velen i don't see why you could not just head straight to novigrad, getting a pass is really easy.

And i also don't understand why people want leveling monsters like in Skyrim.
In Skyrim you have the same opponents everywhere, draugr and bandits, there is nothign else.
And if you get better they just get a little more powerful, yet you will simply roflstomp anything sooner or later.
I'd rather have the witcher system witch higher level monsters.

any enemy that is 4-5 levels above you is not impossible to kill.

And are you sure that you can't apply oils during a fight?
I thought it was possible 8[

You can't apply oil during combat. I get a "You can't do that right now" message.

You could stumble upon a creature and be forced to confront it without the necessary oil. It's ridiculous!

i never had this happen to me, it always worked.
strange.

With the red dot's on the compass the only things you stumble across will be the odd wraith thats not located near a ? or a fight right out a cutscene.

Getting a pass into novigrad is also kind of optional given that you can swim (or sail) across the river.

i tested it today, you can apply oils during combat without any problems.