Jerky33

Someone mentioned that dragons shouldn't be beatable. I wouldn't be opposed to something like that. Why should you be able to defeat every creature in the entire world? They should be very rare, almost mythical like in Dragon Age (in that game they weren't as difficult as I would have liked), and if you see one, you should either run away or try to appease it (just examples, I'm sure the writers could come up with better encounters than that). They should be awe-inspiring and formidable. In my opinion it should take an army to defeat a dragon, not a group of 6, no matter how skilled.

That's definitely something I appreciated in BG1; the "epic" stuff was not only truly rare/expensive, but they weren't overly better than the regular stuff. Plate mail +1, so cool! Since PE is supposed to be the first in a proper franchise, my hope is that the equipment approach is more "ordinay" similarly to BG1. But we know there are going to be a whole bunch of "epic" player-designed stuff, so I have to wonder... Also, some people are comparing BG1 against BG2 and saying the latter is railroaded--no, DA:O was truly railroaded. The biggest difference between BG2 and the likes of DA:O is that in the former, nearly all the map areas outside of Athkatla proper (mainland above ground) were optional side quests--just deeper, longer-running and divergent side quests with initial ungating quests, but still optional for exploration nonetheless. I don't remember optional exploration maps at all in DA:O besides companion quests because there were so few side quests in general. So something between BG1 (low-density dialogue encounters lacking any sense or depth) and BG2 (deeper side content but no low-density exploration) would certainly be the best of both worlds for me. You are right that BG2 areas were optional, but the issue with them is that they were only unlockable if you accepted a quest. You couldn't just wander into an area just because you were exploring the surroundings of the city. I think that's the issue that people were having with BG2. It wasn't too big of a deal because the game was amazing in every other way. I would also be happy with something in the middle of BG 1 and 2, but to be honest, I'd like it a bit closer to BG 1.

Even though I love BG1's exploration and atmosphere, I can definitely understand why exploration wasn't such a big part of BG2. As people stated above, your party starts off at a high level, and gets much more powerful. With a party so powerful, it kind of trivializes the tension and danger that you felt in BG1 because you can just kill anything, and after a while it seems like filler. They could use high level monsters in exploration areas, but then it doesn't seem so realistic (why is this forest full of vampires/illithid, etc.?). I also agree that lower level adventures are the most fun and balanced, and slow leveling is much more preferred than leveling up after the first quest. It should be something meaningful, and actually feel like an accomplishment.

I'm glad I'm not alone in this. Baldur's Gate 1 was an amazing ADVENTURE. Yes, adventure. It's not only the goal that is important (quest points, etc.), but the journey itself. I've never gotten that feeling of adventure in any other game I've ever played. The empty parts of the maps were great because you felt like you were trekking through the wilderness, finding your way to wherever you wanted to go. Someone also mentioned that it added tension because you never knew what you were going to find in the wild, which makes perfect sense. Most RPGs these days try to hold your hand the entire way, and you never feel like you're in danger because you are in your "level appropriate" zone. The whole exploration/wilderness aspect of Baldur's Gate made it feel much more natural and realistic, not to mention making finding a town that much more rewarding, and actually felt like a relief after spending all that time in dangerous areas.

I'm gonna help out the OP here, because he is getting KILLED by some posters here. This is what he is suggesting about "finishing moves" (this phrase does not only refer to slow motion matrix style death animations): Occurs during combat Lasts the same amount of time as a regular attack Does not take control away from the player Is basically a variation of a normal attack, but leads to an enemy's death (stabbing someone through with a sword, someone taking an arrow in the head/chest and falling over as a result of that, etc.) Is NOT slow motion Does not change camera Does not pause the game I think I covered everything. People should start reading everything before posting.