well if you start bg1 and get outside the beginner area you'll wind up fighting mobs for 5 minutes each watching your character miss a lot...bg3 is better than that
I've actually started the EE for the first time ever (only ever played the original), and nah.... A typical early campaign enemy such as a skeleton has an armor class of 7ish... therefore, unless you're doing something wrong, the hit ratio should be 50/50ish right from the go. Ok, some companions are less than ideal, ahem, and there's a couple beefier enemies sprinkled in between, but yeah.
Since it was brought up, I'm also not a super fan of Larian's compressed "Theme park" kind of map design (even though it's fairly free to explore). But BG2 already steered seriously somewhat into that direction. Moreover, you rarely find quests for yourself, they sort of find you (and the quest givers mark locations on your map, which you also don't find yourself). BG2 is a world entirelly built around the player, and it crams as much D&D bestiary et all as it can into a campaign. In particular the exploration as argued was an overreaction to vocal fan criticism leveled at BG1. "Let's not improve how we bulit the first game -- let's just toss is all out entirelly."
As an aside, whilst exploring it occured to me how much the soundtrack, and style of that, had been such a part of the experience. Including different music being played at night... Top drawer.
Baldur's Gate, exactly as it were, is never going to come back. There's people who worked on that game that aren't even in the industry anymore. And not even the "official" spiritual successor, DA:O was all that close to it. Aside of the simplified combat/classes/spells: BG went with the cozy kind of storytelling that was closer to the feels of the TT (including the narrator at each chapter). Whereas DA:O went fully on Hollywood. I'm of the opinon though that a "next" BG will look nothing quite 100% like it. As it's been 25 years now. Geez, I'm old.
