I prefer BG2. I don't play the 2nd without the 1st, but I have always found the 1st to be a chore to get through...

BOTH

I prefered BG1, i liked it's greater feeling of freedom. I liked how you didn't have to use abstracted fast travel in BG1 in particular (but you could if you were lazy and wanted to). You could just look at the map and see where you needed to get to and simply head in the direction on foot, map by map until you got there. You can even ignore the story as long as you like, go to one corner of the world map and simply explore and clear each section of the world map one after the other. I played one game in exactly that way. By the time i picked up the main quest i was a bit overpowered and breezed through it.
In other words i liked BG1 because it felt more like an open world. BG2 was heavily structured and you simply opened up new areas as the story progressed and then you "fast traveled" to them.

I'd say both! But there is a mod out there that actually lets you play both together as one game, it updates the mechanics of the first game to use the mechanics of the second game, but I've played it before and thought it was fun.

I think I remember Hickory mentioning in another thread that playing BG1 using BG2 mechanics made the game too easy. Can't remember if he mentioned what it was specifically that made it easy though. After I knock a few games off my backlog, I'll be looking at doing another BG playthough using mods but I'm a little on the fence about modding the game that way because I want to up the difficulty and installing a mod that makes the game easier would just be counter productive.

Think about everything in BG2 (not story-wise) that's different from BG1, from enhanced weapon specialisations (5 stars in Katana, anybody?) to prestige kits (a Kensai mage in BG1? A ranger with the Archer kit?). There are abilities and spells that simply have no place in BG1. These can be removed, to a degree, with further mods, but even without them the game is simply much easier in the BG2 engine, as good as those mods are. There's too much under the hood that's different.

I think I'm missing something here. I just checked the manuals for both BG and BG2 for the weapon specialisation tables but glancing at the tables, it seems like weapon specialisation was nerfed in BG2. Barring single class fighters and dual classes, Most characters will never go beyond specialised for a certain weapon and the two tables are identical for proficient and specialised bonuses, there doesn't appear to be any different in this regard. However at grand master proficiency, BG1 has bonus to hit +3, bonus to damage +5, attacks per round 2, whereas in BG2, the stats are bonus to hit +2, bonus to damage +3, attacks per round 3/2. The manuals also state that fighters, rangers and paladins gain an extra attack at level 7 (BG1) and moving from master to grand master proficiency inproves the speed factor of the weapon (BG2). The know the manuals for IE games tend to be lying bastards so I'm also ready to accept the possibility this isn't how it works in game, it's just at first glace, it seems like weapon specialisation bonuses got nerfed.

The Kensai/Mage and Archer kit? Yep, I can totally see those as game breaking. I knew the mod added the prestige classes to BG1 and that alone put me off as some of those classes did seem quite out of place in a low level campaign setting. I'm assuming the lower character levels did nothing to help balance those classes?

Just out of curiosity, what were the spells and abilities that didn't have any place in BG1? What I read that, I assumed the high level TOB abilities and the slayer change ability but that can't be right as the former were only available in TOB and the latter is part of the story line in BG2. Still, it seems kinda funny to add them in a mod and have another mod remove them. Well, you did say that there was too much under the hood that was different so I guess I'm going to have to give it a shot and experience it for myself.

That was my mistake. A brain fart made me type specialisation when I actually meant proficiency. In BG1 you only get Large Swords and Small Swords (for sword weilders), but in TuTu/BGT you get all of the different classes of weapons (Bastard, Long, Short, Katana, Scimitar etc.) Sorry about that. Heck, I don't remember them. It's been quite some time since I last played BG1 other than vanilla. I do remember getting spells that shouldn't be there (Find Familiar, Reckless Dweomer etc.), and especially abilities. Thieves laying traps in BG1? What enemy stands a chance against that? Totemic Druid summoning Spirit Animal? Wolves and bears haven't got a hope. It's all just too easy.

Don't forget Assassins coating their blades in poison to keep spellcasters from ever getting a spell off.

True, but my list was far from exhaustive, and in all fairness your example is not so much an issue once sufficient money becomes available, since that is already a valid tactic in BG1: bow casters with Arrows of Biting (Beregost), crossbowman with Bolt of Lightning (High Hedge), a hidden backstabbing thief with the Dagger of Venom (Beregost).

Don't get me wrong, I concur, just making light of how an early level assassin could theoretically wreck casters ways the original didn't account for in the earlier parts of the game.

Ahhh, okay, I'm following along now. Considering summons (and enchantment magics) were king in BG1, I can see characters with OP summons just wreaking all the lower level critters.

I'll give that conversion mod a pass and stick to the conservative modders guide that's stickied in the forum then when I'm ready for my next playthrough. If I feel like stupiding around in BG1 with the BG2 engine, I'll do so but I can't see myself doing a proper playthrough with those kinda changes. It also doesn't help that I can be a bit of a purist when it comes to old games.

As opposed to...spamming wands of summon to swamp your enemies and exploiting the game that way? BG1 has plenty of ways to wreak encounters too if you're inclined to play that way, and just like the BG1 methods you can play in the BG2 engine without choosing the few options which are broken.

I generally treat them as a single game. Start in 1 move to 2.

For the most part, I prefer 1 though. I think it is mostly nostalgia. Or the fact that I have finished 1 way more times than I have finished 2.

I always used to hate the start of 2. I played again recently, and loved it.

There is only 1 Wand of Summoning in BG1 before Sorcerous Sundries in Chapter 6, and that is in a tomb that a low level vanilla BG1 party will *not* want to be in. It is also not fully charged, and to fully charge it takes mega money in BG1 terms. A mage will be able to summon more monsters with his/her own spells than a wand in early chapters. That counter argument holds no merit.