It's a toss-up. If you want a cheaper version that has to have some tweaks to run on a widescreen monitor, then you might want to get the GOG version. You can get both for the price of one half of the game in EE.

If you want some updates to the games and graphics and a few extra quests and characters, then go double with EE.

Nobody here has played the EE, and almost everyone has played and loved the non-EE.

Also, if you want to do multiplayer, I'd recommend getting EE since there'll be a bigger player base.

Buy the originals here and play them with the G3 Widescreen Mod or, if you have some experience using mods or you're feeling adventurous, use the mods I recommend in this post.

This will give you both games for the price of the EE (which will only have BG+TotSC) and the experience that everyone has played and loved for the past ~12 years, so you can't really go wrong with that. And really, a lot of the "enhancements" the EE offers can already be done through the aforementioned mods, so it's a much better deal.

This.

I was really excited for BG:EE when it was announced, but it's turned out to be fairly underwhelming so far. And expensive. Stick with the GOG versions.

I'm fairly excited for BGEE but I would agree that playing the originals first is probably your best bet. And if you get hooked and want more you can always just get the EE later.

I'm still very excited about BGEE. We'll see how it turns out, but the main problem I have with playing the originals is that if you run it at any of the native resolutions to the game, it doesn't scale well on any reasonably recent monitor, but if you use the widescreen mods, well you end up with the characters looking absolutely tiny.

I HATED when the visible area was smaller than the screen (IE you had the slight darkening, fog of war thing, going on at the edges). Really took me out of the immersion. If they do the scaling properly (they say it will have a zoom function), that alone would be worth the price to me. The new content just a nice bonus.

This is exactly how I feel. On my old laptop, it ran at 1024x768 and looked just fine. But on my desktop at 1440x900, it was a smudgy smear and too tiny. I'm excited for the zooming.

Well, they're already using AD&D 2nd Ed. for BGEE, and as far as I know they haven't made any comment on what ruleset future games made by the team will use. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, you make it sound almost as if AD&D was objectively a bad ruleset to use for game design considerations, while really, that's just your opinion. I for one disagree with it.

No, they're using the second edition (AD&D rules). See the FAQ Here. 6th question/answer:

What rule system will be used for Baldur's Gate: Enhanced Edition?
2nd Edition D&D Rules.

Interesting! So you prefer a less open ruleset, with more restrictions and less options for the player? Although 2E is decent, the weapon restrictions, multiclassing, levelcap for specific races and nonexisting options for the player is laughable. What is good about a ruleset which hinders your Cleric from picking up and wielding a sword, or the mage from putting on a leatherarmor?

That's quite simple, in the original D&D clerics were not meant to wield swords and mages were not meant to wear armor because those restrictions were part of their design. Similarly, characters of some races were not meant to become certain classes for the same reason.

But really, the main difference between the 2nd and 3rd editions is the absence/presence of feats. Feats are a great addition, but sometimes a game does not need to be more complex in order to be just as entertaining. In my opinion BG2 has enough complexity and tactical combat to stand on its own merits, mainly because you have a party and the different classes have enough options in total to satisfy most needs. Would adding feats to the equation have a positive effect on gameplay? Perhaps, perhaps not. For some players yes, for others not.

It's debatable, is what I'm saying.

'every other RPG fan who cares about game design'? Really? A bit over dramatic don't you think? 2nd edition has its flaws for sure, but I enjoyed it far more than 3rd in NWN and 3.5 in NWN2. I'd be perfectly happy with 2nd edition.
Restrictions are part of the game. It makes you think carefully how you construct and advance your party. The super characters that 3 and 3.5 allow, IMO, take away from the game.
Agreed. I loved NWN2, but I was really overwhelmed with all the different feats, specialty kits, etc. I ended up just really taking my Paladin on a traditional leveling approach and picked basic feats.

There's an huge difference between restrictions and restrictions. Essentially every class in 2E looks the same exept from the stats. There is no freedom to customize your character at all. Although much of the flavour in 3E came from feats, all classes except the Fighter got some unique class abilities.

I think you guys miss the point about classes and item restrictions. It takes away the possibility to play your character how you want rather then playing the same generic class.
A rule that say that you cant pick up said weapon on the ground simply because you picked the wrong class, even though your strength score is extreme is retarded!

Wow, there is such a rule? That sounds stupid alright. It's fortunate they haven't implemented it in BG.

Yeah AD&D has it fair share of nonsensical restrictions, but I think in the Baldur's Gate games they have found just the right combination of which restrictions to implement and which ones to throw away. At least for my tastes.

I'm sure glad they've done away with the demihuman level caps, those were... not very well thought out.

Wow, it's almost like you never even played AD&D at all!

First off, the classes in 2e are very very different for a variety of reasons, the restrictions on them being one of them. Every class also gets something that no other class can do. Backstabs, free dual-wielding, paladin abilities, bard song, shapeshifting, the list goes on. Dropping the race/level/ability/equipment restrictions would make the classes LESS distinct, rather than more distinct, so I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. On the one hand you want things to be more different but at the same time you want them more homogenous.

Secondly, nothing is stopping you from handling, or even using equipment that's forbidden to your class. In a game like BG, this is handled very simply, but it's actually substantially more complicated in the real rules. There's no rule stopping a barbarian from using a Holy Avenger, the thing that stops him is that the Holy Avenger will ELECTROCUTE HIM if he touches it because the weapon is intelligent with its own alignment. Clerics can use whatever weapons they please, but if they use a weapon that's against their ethos, they'll lose their clerical powers because their deity is pissed. Some deities actively encourage the use of bladed weapons, such as Tempus. Wizards can freely use whatever weapons they want, it's just that they haven't been trained in their use because they've been busy with their nose in a book. Wizards that have actually had martial training can do just fine (represented by a dual or multiclass character).

The racial restrictions also make sense. Unlike 3e+, humans get no special abilities, whereas nonhumans get an extraordinary amount of cool stuff to play around with. The class and level restrictions serve to encourage multiclassing, which you honestly ought to be doing as an abhuman anyway. In most games the level caps wouldn't have any effect anyway even for single-classed characters. In BG1, for instance, they wouldn't matter in the slightest. Even in SoA only a couple of characters (like Mazzy) would actually run into trouble. There's even an extended discussion about this particular rule in the 2e DMG. Essentially, without any class restrictions, humans as the weakest race would get steamrolled by everyone. The true strength of the humans is their versatility and their numbers, and that they aren't placed in a straightjacket by their culture (which most of the other races are).