I'm thinking of playing The Witcher 2, but I haven't finished the first one and frankly I don't want to. I found the first Witcher game frankly quite painful to play, and after the first chapter I was just done with it. I was wading around in sewers or something walking super slowly and I realised I just didn't want to keep playing. I've heard the second is very good, and the third one is amazing, so I'd prefer to not let a bad first entry ruin what is apparently a great series.

So, what I want to know is:

* Do you miss much story-wise without playing the first game?
* Is the second game more enjoyable than the first one?
* Does the second game still have all that weird sex card nonsense or similar?
* Is the second game all-round less cringe-inducing?
* Are the quests less dull?
* Does the writing improve?

Honestly I really liked the overall concept, and I really wanted to like it, I just couldn't. I kind of hated the stupid magic genetics stuff and the obvious garbage references to things like Oxford though. That stuff really threw me out of the setting.

I have yet to meet somebody that has played, let alone beaten, the first Witcher game, so you're okay, lol.

Witcher 1 is a great game and way better than Witcher 2.

No, you won't miss any relevant story by playing Witcher 2 first and/or only.

The cards from the first game are amazing, not nonsense. No, part 2 doesn't have them, and that's one of the reasons why it's worse.

As for your other questions, IMO they are all loaded with false premises. That ways how you described TW1 are not actually what it's like.

Part 2 definitely has additional wading around in sewers.

They're the ones that are relevant to my specific experience of it. Trying to impress upon me that TW1 wasn't awful doesn't make for a helpful answer, because I clearly thought it was.

It's impossible to answer loaded questions accurately.

Just a little back story, and it can be difficult to keep track of the kingdoms at first. That's subjective, obviously, but it sounds like pretty much anything would be given your experience with the first. They're very different games with radically different priorities. No cards, some avoidable brothels and sex scenes, a little unavoidable nudity. You definitely spend less time running around doing errands for people in 2, if that helps. The writing focuses more on politics and the machinations of some key characters than the previous game. If you're into that sort of thing, then there's a lot to like about the writing in 2.

I finished it and thought it was ok, if not great.

Hiya. Nice to meet you. Also TW1 is great.

Thanks for your answers, very helpful. :) It's less sex scenes/nudity and more the literal "sex trophy" aspect of the first game that turned me off.

That's all part of the lore - before there were the games and now also graphic novels there were several short stories and long novels (which are amazing and among the best fantasy books out there). The games are a continuation of the books.

Actually, if you read the books a lot of the events esp. in Witcher 2+3 will make more sense to you. Although it's possible to play the games without prior knowledge of the books of course.

If you don't want to finish Witcher 1 I'd read up on the story and esp. ending because the end of Witcher 1 leads directly to the beginning of the second game.

The first game was a love letter to the books. The second game picks up where the first left off. I'd suggest getting a save of the playthrough you want (watch a lets play on line to figure out which one you want) because a few of the decisions make minor impact in TW2. The second game is pretty good over all. It takes some getting used to, though.

I'd suggest to read the books first, then watch a play through of the first game before jumping into the second game because the political intrigues are much more interesting when you have a better idea what Temeria, Redania, the Pontar, the Jaruga, Rivia, the Battle of Brenna, and Cintra are. The game is far less confusing when you can tell what Kingdoms are actually about and why they are, as well as who all the sorceresses named in the game are. Sabrina, Frangilla, Francesca, Yennifer, Phillipa, Sile, etc. will at least be mentioned at one time or another for various reasons in TW2.

TW3 also has a lot of similar references with more fleshed out Nilfgaardians as well. And we finally meet Duny.

I'd like to point out, that the games are officially set in an alternative/parallel universe, so they are set after the events of the books, but can't be a continuation.

Sapkowski's official statement: "Świat gry i świat literatury to światy całkowicie odrębne" (roughly "The game world and the literature world are the worlds that are totally distinctive). Well, I'm not so good in English, but hope you understood.

I did. And I loved it. Yes it has its quirks, but it's still a great game. And the combat is really fun once you get the hang of it.
Also yes, you can play the second without the first. You'll be missing out mostly on some hints and references to the witcher world, but the second is a good game on its own.

If the moving speed was to slow for you in first Witcher, it won't be faster in the second. And this is all true for the first. 1. There are a couple of decisions in the first game that affect a story in the second, plus you will get some gear. But it mostly matters only at the beginning of the game.
2. No. The second game is as enjoyable as the first one.
3. The game has sex. Is it weird?
4. What do you mean?
5. No. You still have to talk to characters, kill monsters and occasionally solve riddles.
6. There is nowhere to improve. If you don't like ideas of witchers and references to modern world, what "overall concept" are you talking about?

That's a bit of splitting hairs... if you read the books and then play the games the games simply continue the story. For Sapkowski the story of Geralt ends in the books - I know that. The games are a bit like "extended universe".
But the areas are a lot smaller.