Coelocanth: Not really. By that criteria
every game is unplayable. Even the Witcher EE could be better. Again, sorry for nitpicking, but look at it this way:
if someone that's never played the Witcher asked about the original release of the game, and you said "It's unplayable. Fact", they're going to think there's some sort of game-breaking bug (or several) that would prevent you from completing the game. I doubt anyone would conclude you mean it could be improved.
shadowguard: Witcher 1 is the only game that I've not played when it came out (alongide with Gothic 3). That's a fact;)...So, yes, Witcher 1 had game-breaking bugs for me.
EDIT:
And I hope that the following two patches will correct TW2 so I do not have to wait for new EE.
In all fairness, Witcher 1 had an above average number of bugs reported by many reviews several of whom said that it turned what would have been a classic into a "flawed classic". Many did report difficulities getting through the game due to the bugs. Although not, "unplayable" technically. In part it comes down to patience. Certainly Witcher 1 (first release) had more bugs then, say Baldor's Gate, or Dragon Age 1 upon their initial releases. So you are both correct, although for a persistant person like me the bugs wouln't have been unplayable, but irritating. If you want REALLY buggy try "Temple of Elemental Evil". some serious problems in there that never really got fixed. (volunteer people are still working on it apparently for the sake of the game.. what passion!) For others, the patience/persistant may not have been there. Witcher 2 is reported to have fewer bugs than Witcher 1 upon the initial release (leading to somewhat better reviews overall. Testing things as complex as a game like Witcher 2 (or even witcher 1) is not a trivial matter. I have some bones to pick with CDP in other areas but I can tolorate bugs as long as they are fixed and I can get the fixes without undue hoops.
Incidently, "2 patches"? I thought only one was announced....so far....did I miss something?