I didn't get to play TW2 'cause my computer can't handle it. As for body hair, if there was any i didn't notice it. You rarely see him outside of the same outfit he wears the whole game. Like, when i saw all the promotional material for TW3 then went and played TW1, i was disappointed. He looks and acts young, even really awkward in TW1. It's not a bad game, but it reminds me of Vampire the Masquerade: Redemption level acting, which makes more sense for a a much younger geralt than it did the lead character of that game. Geralt feels like he is growing up all over again, since his memory loss hit him hard. He feels like he has to feign confidence for everyone else's benefit, but ultimately lost and confused. He's a bit like an 18-20 year old male who's just trying to find his place in the world, with the caveat tht he already has one, but just forgot what it was. It seems to me that this is why people have a problem with this Henry Cavill: that's precisely what he looks like here. He changed alot, grew alot, throughout the games. I see this casting reflecting that potential as well.

EDIT: Now that you mention it, i find it strange that geralt has any facial hair at all, lore wise. His hair should not be growing. Aesthetic wise, sure, but then we're getting back to video game logic.

I know it still has its fans here, but I dare say almost everything about Witcher 1 feels a little awkward nowadays, when compared to Witcher 3. There were a handful of things about Witcher 2 which I liked better than in the third game, but that's a different topic. ( By the way, Witcher 2 has fairly modest hardware requirements, depending on how old your PC is. I remember I was able to run it at maxed out settings with a GTX 750 Ti. )

Here's a picture of his body hair in Witcher 1: https://imgur.com/XXTjdfZ

I've seen a few more such screenshots, so it might be official, but it's been years since I played the first game, so I don't remember for sure.

How does the hair thing work anyway? I know his body has been altered by alchemy/magic/whatever; that's why his hair and skin are pale, and it enhanced his sight and other senses. But if that somehow affects his hair growth, shouldn't he have lost all of his hair? And if it only "bleached" his hair, shouldn't his eyebrows and chest hair ( in the first game ) be white too? I suspect there may be no explanation to any of this, and it's simply the influence of the artists/ art directors of each Witcher game, and their own aesthetic preferences.

Seems he does, then. That looks unmodded to me. It might depend on your graphics settings, but also you don't see it very often. I'm usually behind geralt, and not really paying attention to him. Well, generally white hair means dead hair. Although you can grow a bead when it's gray, it's more or less dying. I am no biologist, but i imagine that pure white is a clear indication that he ain't growing it any longer. Best way to troll geralt would be to shave him all over. If i were one of the villains, instead of doing some of the silly things they do like simply kidnap him, i'd make him shave bald.

It's probably been said already, but Geralt looked better in that ridiclous porn parody trailer. :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqC2PoFHbJ4

Yeah, by the events of the Witcher 3 Geralt is one of the last old west gunfighters on the verge of retirement, a relic of a bygone era saddling up for his final mission. Giving him an unkempt appearance was a natural extension of that tone.

Hair isn't living in the first place.

I realized that, too, but that's more on CDPR than anyone else. From an aesthetic point of view, it makes sense, but not logical point of view. Kind of like the magic beard itself.

Common misconception (probably for the benefit of cosmetic companies): it is alive. It's dead by the time you see it, but hair is alive to begin with. If it's not alive, it won't grow.

The structures that produce hairs and nails are alive, hair and nails themselves are not alive at any point.

Those structures are part of the hair and nails respectively. If that were any other way, viruses are dead the minute they leave the host.

Except it doesn't matter what happens to the nails or the hair so long as the structure that produces them is intact. You can pull the hairs and the nails themselves completely out, and so long as you left the structures intact more will be produced. And the hairs/nails themselves won't suddenly "die" being removed, they were never alive in the first place.

By that definition you could say the same thing of a limb, especially that of an insect.

Contrarily, though, by pulling on hair, you can indeed remove the follicles producing the death of said follicles.

That'd be damaging the structure that produces the hair so duh it could cause issues for future hair production. Hair isn't alive, the follicles are, but hair is not.

Unless you consider mucus, ear wax, stools, and the like alive (and no I'm not talking about the bacteria they contain)...

mucus, earwax, stool, etc are no longer connected to the structure that produced them.

EDIT: Stool is also special, for it is changing dead into dead.