Eagle vision? you mean Witcher Sense? I hardly used that and I 100% completed the game.
The best part of the story and side quests was the constant acknowledgement that every choice was to some degree morally ambiguous, there was no Paragon or Full Evil playthrough. as for the ending it was more varied that most games based on your choices, certainly more varied that Mass Effect that sold on 'choices matter'. Then again I got the 'best' ending with every witcher alive, all players I could rescue saved, and the proper romance option (Yen).
It just seems like you played a different game, but then again people like different things so I don't expect you or everyone to like the game.
Also 2 years ago there where several games that almost straight copied W3 (Assassins Creed) or incorporated elements, that arguably did it better, but that is kinda the point in improving upon the past.
edit: prior to 2015 there really wasn't a game that combined everything W3 did. open world, rpg, choices matter, very long, tps melee combat, full voiced dialogue, high production value and gfx, etc. after there are plenty.
The ending I received was about 10 minutes or less. You spend more time talking to random people in a village than getting proper closure on whatever the story was supposed to be. The game lingers on for hours with little plot movement before dropping lots of exposition right at the end, without attempting to give the player a reason to care about anything all that much. There is a girl, you like her apparently, and need to save her from super elves. It was very rushed and of course is a problem with the length of the game as well as the pacing.
Choices? Pretty much everything you do in the previous game had zero real affect. No better than Mass Effect there. Main difference between the two is Mass Effect crafted conflicts that came up naturally throughout the game, and you ended up getting closure on many of them. They were build up and allowed you to form opinions and care about most if not all of them. Not so much for Witcher 3. The game leads you through a couple of plot lines - You like character X, you hate thing Y. Make a decision about a villager that won't matter 10 minutes from now, rinse repeat for a few hours before we take you back to the actual story.
I played Assassin's Creed Origins and Odyssey, and cannot see how they copied Witcher 3. Odyssey has more in line with MMO style upgrades and grinding, with a more awkward and cheesy leveling system. The levelling system in Witcher 3 wasn't too bad, and more or less was just a way to dole out new attacks, just at an excessively slow pace. Yeah they added dialogue options but that isn't unique to Witcher. Aside from being long, 3rd person and having swords, not much else is similar between the two. Odyssey sucked. Witcher 3 felt like they tried at least.