Which is better? Haha, this is kind of blunt, but it's an honest question.

Pretty subjective, but I predict the majority of people will say they prefer BG2. I personally like BG1 better, but likely that's because I tend to prefer lower level campaigns.

I started playing it. Dang, I mean I have played old school rpgs such as Might and Magic, and Ultima, but I find it verrry hard. It got a bit easier when I got bows for everyone.

Yep, ranged attacks rule. And you can easily wander into areas far too tough for your character for the first few levels.

A level 1 char is BG1 is very squishy so you'll probably be resorting to ranged attacks and kiting until you get a level or 2 under your belt.

Once again, as for which you'll like better, it depends on what your looking for as Coelocanth already mentioned. If you could tell us what you hope to get out of the game, answering your question might be a little easier

Personally I preferred BG2 to BG1: it obviously built on the areas where the original was weak and improved the roleplaying aspects. That said, I prefer a full game of both of them, in BGT, to either individually.

Unlike many others, I can't really choose between them. BG1 is great for low level campaigns and I like the story better. BG2 is more structured (less freedom to go where you want), but it has the benefit of higher level spells which can make fights a bit more different and intense.

Perhaps in asking for opinions, they want to learn enough about what to expect from each one so that they only play the games that seem most likely to appeal to them as opposed to spending time on a long game that they might or might not like?

@OP I second what most people have to say about BG 1. level 1 in early D&D is a very frail place to be as survival comes down to luck of the dice in combat, so it's wise to hold off on wandering out into the wilderness until everyone has some form of long range weapon; even if you do wind up missing some shots, everyone should land enough hits on that wolf to either take it out before it eats the party or at the very least soften it up for the front line fighters. If there are any casters in the party, it helps if they are taking spells that help the party out in ways other than dealing damage (Sleep in particular is vital at low levels for Mages, and Priests get a nice variety of buffs/debuffs). Other than that, all you can do is divide equipment among the party sensibly and save early, often, and in different slots; I don;t recall any game breaking bugs off the top of my head, but you will need to save scum a lot early on.

I think ya have to judge em a certain way. On their own they can't really be compared, but BG1 is like BG2-lite. BG2 has more than BG1 and does almost everything better. About the only way BG2 is lacking is that while regions are densely packed there are less of them and the world and quest/story structure is more confining. There are no sprawling interconnected field regions to explore in BG2. Heck, BG2 becomes a hallway for its entire midgame.

BG2's biggest improvements is in its added depth and functionality. BG2's greatest drawback is in the way quests are designed to screw ya over for going through them a certain way. Even if a certain approach seems perfectly reasonable and even if the journal hints at being able to do it a certain way, if it's considered the "wrong" way you can end up getting cut out of awesome quest rewards and even entire quest series. You had to *try* to make this happen in BG1, but in BG2 it can happen and you won't even necessarily know you're getting screwed.

But BG2 has more. More quests, more items, more spells, deeper narrative, more fleshed out characters though I am disappointed at the lack of companions in BG2 - less than half as many as its predecessor.

And "less than half" is still 17. (Counting Sarevok) Only this time they all get actual dialogue and quests and whatnot.

Tons more than any of the later Bioware games get. Mass Effect 3 has 8. Dragon Age 2 has 9. And you need to pay for DLC to get that many in both cases.

My bigger issue with the party members in BG2 is that there's too much redundancy. Really, -how- many mage/thief multi- or dual class characters do we need? Would it have hurt them to include a second single class thief, or maybe a fighter-thief?

To answer the OP: BG2 is much better as a game. BG1 has a nice atmosphere and a good sense of place, which BG2 lacks outside of Athkatla, and the plot in BG1 makes more sense. But BG2's writing is much, much less clunky. NPCs in BG2 have actual personalities, as opposed to just stat-lines. Gameplay is also a lot more varied and doesn't rely on shooting the enemy with bows while staying out of reach 90% of the time.

Yeah, I think instead of judging by quantity of companions I should have judged based on variety. The variety of companions is lacking. What we're given suffices well enough, but it would have been nice to be able to play with more.

Quests in BG2 are a burden for another reason, given that many of them are pushed at you whether you're ready or not, then give you only so much time to complete them. There are a *ton* of quests, which is cool, but if you're gonna throw that many objectives around you gotta allow players to manage them. Skyrim has hundreds of quests, but none of them are timed and players can pick them up whenever they want. Especially early on, BG2 feels rushed. It makes for a very poor introduction. After ActI the game mellows out, but turns into a hallway.

This is my biggest issue with BG2 - and it is a *very* big issue - but for as infuriating as it is I still consider BG2 the "superior" game if there is one. Kind of like the Batman: Arkham games (Origins never happened), they're both great in their own right. To me a proper sequel should build upon its predecessor and refine whatever had been lacking. BG2 does this well.

That's actually one of my favourite parts of the game. My character is wanting to go deal with some vampires but first Jaheira gets in trouble and then Anomen goes and does something deeply stupid and before that's over Jan rushes off to deal with a personal crisis. It can be a bit frustrating, but in a good way, because it makes the game-world feel more alive and reactive.

Other quests generally aren't timed, or are on a soft timer. (Like Nalia: if you don't go to her castle in time she'll leave and go ahead, but you can pick her up at the castle and continue on as if nothing happened whenever you please.) Plus, the timed quests are generally story-heavy and combat-light, so you're unlikely to run into trouble blocking your path. So I never really feel constrained by these timers.

I see what you mean about making the world feel more reactive, but man, early on the way I kept tripping into quests felt like it bordered on slapstick. I went to meet with someone at the Coppor Coronet for a job, Nalia pops up and tells me that she has an urgent matter that needs remedying. I decided to be nice and help; after all, this is urgent, and the other guy will keep. No sooner do I set foot outside and head her way then I rescue someone who has been poisoned; figuring that this is even more urgent, I take him to where he needs to go, only to get told by Yoshimo that we should probably make sure that the local crime boss is ok with him operating in the city; figuring that having a member of the party in the sights of a gang was not a good idea, I went that way after dropping off the poisoned victim. I infiltrated the gang, but during the course of it I stumbled into yet another quest about a cult; upon trying to help out with that, I stumbled into yet another quest involving an artist. I didn't get much further than that on that particular playthrough because of how annoying (albeit somewhat hilarious) the whole affair was; it was like the RPG equivalent of a matryoshka doll with more layers than I could imagine, to the point that I was beginning to forget what my initial quest was.

That very much echoes my own experience, with different NPCs.

[Spoilers follow]

Setting out following a devastating blow to the party, and my own character, to attempt to at least get Imoen back from the prison. Finding situations which are more urgent, and which my character's conscience won't allow him to delay on - Imoen is, after all, only imprisoned (so far as my character knows), and letting a town/castle die to get her back a little quicker would be wrong.... Finally getting through these and preparing to board the ship, only for a dark figure from Jahiera's past to show up and poison her...and then attempt to claim diplomatic immunity due to being unarmed and not fighting when I reach him.

Coincidentally, my own character indeed wouldn't kill someone in cold blood like that, whatever the motives - it would set a dangerous precedent for someone with his bloodline. I got around it by pointing out, in character, that while yes, I wouldn't attack someone in that way, Minsc was bound by no such requirements...

[End spoilers]

More on topic, I definitely preferred BG2. Don't assume by that that I didn't enjoy BG1: when I played them both for the first time last year, I still found it one of the best RPGs I've played - it was just vastly eclipsed by BG2 when I got to it. I'd strongly recommend playing BG1 first, preferably with the canon party. That'll allow you to enjoy what BG1 has without comparing it to BG2, and will mean you have that much more developed a character by the time of BG2, and have actually experienced the adventuring with the party which BG2 assumes. Plus, it's just...nice to go through the whole series as one story, especially the first time.