He didn't say that these games were bad (on the contrary!), but too much relies on pure luck, not on skills.
For me, getting bad dice roll on some spellcheck because i didn't use some skill that can help me, and afterwards getting killed is much more reasonable, than having 6/6 HP and getting killed by a lonely arrow.

I never said they were bad games.

I said that their mechanics were bad. Tabletop mechanics are great for tabletops. Great for people sitting around running numbers in their head. Great for parties hanging out, having fun, fighting a few monsters, having a DM who'll fudge rolls.

Tabletop mechanics are bad for a game where combat is the primary focus.

You want to know the main reason I never got in to BG? The reason that, to this day, I have never gotten more than half an hour in to one of the most iconic RPGs ever?

The game didn't give me a chance to give a rats ass about what was going on in the world before it frustrated me with multiple deaths from fights that my tabletop gamer mind knows should not be happening to a FIRST LEVER CHARACTER!

Wanna know why I never beat IWD?
The.. yuan-ti fight, IIRC. I could not beat that fight without blatant cheating.

Wanna know the only reason I beat ToEE:
Knowing 3.5 inside and out, knowing how to break the systems.. oh yeah, and having the mod that allowed me to have more than 5 PCs and removed the arbitrarily low level cap, and givign my characters slightly better stats than the crappy point buy allowed. (rolling dice for the stats and using an editor to change them)

BG without D&D mechanics? Might have actually worked for me.
IWD without D&d mechanics? Definitely.
ToEE without D&D mechanics? Maybe, depending on what they used instead.

So, it is your problem, really. I've beaten BG1, IWD 1 with multiple sets of characters on different difficulty levels.

That guy above you said: But that's exactly how it is in Bg1! Of course, there are several moments when you are alone in a game, but when you get first NPC to your team you just need to follow a simple rule - HEAVY ARMORED FIRST.

If you follow that simple rule, noone will ever even FIRE and arrow on a mage.

Lots and lots of people have beaten the whole game with just single character without cheating.

I can agree that the story in BG1 at the beggining is rather weak, though...

I thought it was just an urban legend.

Well.. I never have finished any of those. Baldur's or Torment. Torment was close though.
I prefer percentage over dice rolls. Almost same thing but clearer than D&D-rules.
Any case, I would hate to hit or miss every hit if I didn't earn it with stats.
Baldur 2 is too brown.
Baldur 1 is too action oriented and without romances.
Torment.. Well, it's excellent.
Propably will buy or win those at some point. But after witcher 1 I'll dedicate my time to fallout 1 or witcher 2. No.. fallout. I'll wait the W2 1.3 patch

Either one is a great choice, and both are absolute musts for RPG-fans. However, if you're forced to pick just one, I'd recommend PT. As others have stated, the story and the setting (and the floating skull) make it just that little bit more special.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Well, in a roleplaying game it's nice thing to have if it isn't forced upon you.

Edit:In Final fantasys they are awfull. Too much sugar and there are no choice. Always liked the battling system though. But those are console rpg:s.
Overall, if it is a group based game, it's nice to interract with them various manner.

Shall I be the contrarian to popular opinion? Nah....PS:T was awesome and has an excellent cast of characters (Gith, Demi-Lich, Modron, Tiefling, etc.) although BG also has memorable characters (Minsc, Boo, and Khajira [sp?]) though more conventional (except, of course, Boo who is a reference to Spelljammer [Geezer Gamer strikes again!]).

For sheer epic, LONG gameplay; Baldur's Gate 1 & 2 wins out but for unique setting and enthralling gameplay, Planescape takes the cake.

My gist here is you can NOT go wrong with either decision, though I will say, get BG 1 BEFORE playing BG2

For me, Planescape is as close a real rpg chronicle can be to a computer game (a lot of talking and investigation, less centered in combat that ordinary computer rpg). If you prefer something more standard, then go for Baldur gate. Personally, I consider Planescape one of the best games I have ever played in any system, so I would recomend that. Besides, Is heavyly modded, so It would look sweet even today.

Weak story + frustrating gameplay = anyone who isn't a masochist finding something else to do. :p

Baldur's Gate 2 is a great game but since you'd first have to play through Baldur's Gate, I'd say go for Planescape Torment which is a self-contained story and one of the most immersive ones in a game, too. BG isn't all that bad but nothing compared to BG2 and a questionable choice if you could play PS:T instead. Unless you hate reading and prefer lots of hack and slash action, that is. In that case PS:T might not be for you.

But it can't say the same for Baldur's Gate 2. Story is amazing just from the beginning. I've played BG2 first, and then BG1 and i think this is the right thingh to do.

Why? Because game mechanics in BG2 are worse than in Bg1 (for example, unpausing the game while in inventory). If I played Bg1 first, i would probably not play Bg2.

And ive played Bg1 because ive loved the second one and I needed to learn more about Baal's spawn more.

{the creak of aged bones heralds the entrance into the fray the GEEZER Gamer}

back in my day....

Seriously, I've played D&D since 1st ed (actually before 1st Ed, but I digress) and while there is much debate over mechanics and is tabletop better than CRPG we must put BG, BG2, and PS:T into context: we're essentially arguing which is better, books or movies?

BG is a great game but if we're to critique the game for a tough start, well welcome to AD&D 1st Ed, AD&D 2nd Ed, D&D 3rd and 3.5 Ed, but not so much with 4th Ed. In PnP, tabletop gaming, it is not unusual to have a 1st level mage get waxed in the first fight because he/she has 1d4 HP and typically sucky CON. A dagger, a crossbow bolt, or a mean papercut from his spell book would kill him outright. As for fighters, THAC0 stat tables essentially made you only slightly LESS vulnerable than your mage. Don't even get me started on 1st ed BARDS! If a DM was merciful, another party member had the chance to keep you from dying by binding your wounds and all that. If not, well, you had a spare character rolled up anyway, right?

In BG it absolutely SUCKS to have your 1st level mage face the assassin in the barracks one-on-one, but mages are notoriously sucky at hand-to-hand anyway. Frustrating? Hell yes! but does it make for a masochistic experience? Depends on your level of tolerance, I suppose. I've played BG a bajillion times through and enjoyed it thoroughly though BG2 more so. By the mid- to late-game, my mage was demi-god and pwning faces all over the place while Minsc and Khalid stood defense, Imoen and maybe Dynaheir or Kajirah acted as support and artillery.

The only way, and I mean the ONLY way, to make D&D rules more computer-friendly is to do what Hasbro has done with 4th ed - make it a tabletop CRPG. There was, and remains, no other way to make the nuanced, tabletop game (replete with rules lawyering, house rules, and DM discretion) translate accurately to the monitor.

Can you have a good D&D experience on the computer? Absolutely.
Is it better with 4 to 5 other friends, a good table, a fridge full of Mountain Dew and a cabinet full of Chicken in a Biscuit or Doritos? Without a doubt.

Solution: run a multiplayer game, even if playing alone.

@ VetMicheal & keeveek,

I like the fact that in 2e, no matter what class your PC is, your character starts out weaker than those that want him/her dead and the fearsome animals & beasts found in the wilderness. It seems only logical that the first few fights the PC is in, that he/she is overmatched; especially in the mage's case, as the mage is studying magical fundamentals, not battle tactics, upon becoming a mage. It's a dangerous world out there, and it's good that the PC & his/her friends begin to understand that as soon as possible. It's a given that most adventurers die in their profession, rather than outlive it. And really, Baldur's Gate 1 wouldn't stand out the way it did when it came out --- and still does now, by all accounts --- if the game was easy, or streamlined, at the beginning. I've played the series for years now, and I still find the series to be challenging. Much more so than both 3e/3.5e rules, both in tabletop & the NWN series. They're fun & all, but the rules come off as making cheese a big part of their main fabric (ie- I killed Klauth the red dragon in NWN1-OC on my 1st try, w/my clumsily built PC & Linu, yet it took me like more than 5 tries on my last BG2 playthrough, w/a full BG2 party + summons, to finally kill Firkraag the red dragon).

I think what they did w/2e being the ruleset for the BG series was implemented the best it could be done in all fantasy combat video games out there, before & after the BG series came out. 4e is nothing but a bad joke, a complete rip off of the World of Warcraft rules, unto being both their doppleganger and 3.5e's doppleganger. My personal preference of 2e, while not perfect, I feel is still way ahead of the pack in terms of bringing quality combat, fantasy magic etc. The magic system makes 'sense' & so do the combat rules. It makes perfect sense that someone could die in combat based on a bad roll, juss like anything can happen in an NBA game, including winning or losing on a halfcourt shot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKcFZvqEXjM