Problem is not it in number of lvl ups itself, but in the fact, that it is low lvls, what limits all - less variety of spells, equipment, enemies. It's fine for tabletop campaign to usually not get above 10 lvl because the main fun comes from good GM and live communication of players in the party, it may even turn out badly when you get high levels and too wide pool of abilities - need too much controll to not turn a game into the mess. But it's not the case in CRPG where most of calculations and control over system performed automatically by program. When you play CRPG as singleplayer game (most of such games played as single, no matter how good multiplayer is) more variety is always a bless. BG2 SoA also has ~10 lvls of progression, but you start not with lvl 1, you already have 7-8 lvl and have a nice pool of abilities to experiment with. Also it's more enjoyable to get a gear worth to change for the whole playthrough, like from normal to +4\5 in BG2. In BG1 it was awful to get +2\3 easily and soon (in the 2-3 chapters just by exploring areas near Nashkel and Beregost) and realize that you wouldn't find anything better then you already have.
You may tell that 10-20 lvls are for the godlike characters in d&d but what if so? Just let us to face with enemies with comparable strength. BG2 did it and there was a great variety of unique enemies and great battles with them. In BG1 battles with the same groups of low lvl creatures with no unique attacks or properties which demand to use different tactics were really dull.
Well, i didn't like progression from D:OS2, where you can get x1.5\2 dmg boost just for 1 lvl up, but progression of low lvl characters in d&d game will be even worse cause of boring. I know, it's obvious that Larian wants to keep high levels for the sequel, but having an example of BG1 and BG2 makes me want to wait BG4 instead of BG3.
Last edited by Sergey Butsenov; 19/03/20 07:58 AM.
