Higher numbers doesn't mean better as some here seem to think. You make some assertions, like BG2 being considered "far better" than BG1 because of the high-level gameplay, which is objectively untrue as well as removing context out to prove your point. Both BG1 and 2 (including expansions) are considered classics with comparable review scores. However, BG2 was also a considerably larger game (BG3 promises to be far bigger than both) that benefited from the experience gained from making the original. BG2 also benefited from increased player engagement. It was the long-awaited final chapter, the culmination, of a particular story and the players had grown attached to their characters. All the big guns was pulled out for it not to be anti-climactic. But beyond level 20 this growth was over the top (while still remaining immersive due to the high-powered nature of the character/storyline). BG2 appeared more epic partly because of the sense of growth from BG1 starting with the lowly rats in cellar RPG-trope. Retrospectively those kobold commandos in BG1 seems a trifle, but they could decimate your party as fast as a dragon or lich on later levels.
Based on limited experience with D&D 5e (from my interest in BG3), the classes seem more front-loaded and sustainable while the power creep with level progress is less exponential; the numbers are not super-inflated and lower level mobs still may pose a threat - whereas a thousand hobgoblins is a walk in the park with Pathfinder (1) and older editions of D&D. That means more mobs stay somewhat relevant and that you may face those epic monsters while still not high level yourself. Of course, you may have to wait until BG4 to be able to cast all the spells that make you drunk with power. In my mind, this is a good thing.
