I've also heard that in 2 it's pretty obvious that CDPR didn't yet have the budget to fully realize the game they clearly wanted to make, and that it's clear that 3 is when their resources finally caught up with their ambition. Is it worth it? I've heard 1 feels so archaic now that it's not really worth playing. I'm playing around with the idea of playing through 2 first. I finally played Blood and Wine over the last couple weeks (it's as incredible as I'd heard, definitely the best DLC I've ever played), I watched the Netflix series (which I thought was garbage, I was barely paying attention by the end), I just bought the first book, and despite already playing through it three times I think I'm going to go ahead an start the main campaign of 3 again. I've been on a pretty big Witcher kick recently. I believe throughout the game you're repeatedly given the chance to side with humans or non-humans in some sort of war, or you can also maintain neutrality like witchers are supposed to. I liked the combat in Witcher 1 better overall. It's just a bit weird, because you basically have to roll around a lot - or get surrounded and killed.

I didn't like it at first, but got used to it. And how much of the plot of 1 should I know before playing? I know that Geralt has amnesia in the first game (and I think most of the way through 2 as well?) and that the game basically revolves around Geralt tracking down a group of bad guys who ransacked Kaer Morhen and stole the equipment used to make new Witchers. I wouldn't say the combat system in Witcher 2 is broken.

Witcher 2 how to riposte