you are smart enough to know, that I meant you can't constructively compare the two.
You can compare the NY Giants to the Dallas Cowboys, talk about the strength and weakness of each team in a constructive way. BUT comparing the 2020 Dallas Cowboys to the 1950 NY Yankees would be a waste of time, no valuable information could be obtained by that comparison, there are to many differences to talk about.
Comparing BG2 to BG3 is a waste of time, there are to many differences and not on the same, mmmm, anything.
"hey man you can compare anything dummy" is sort of not the point, and well, I think you know that. But instead of addressing my point or not addressing it, you made up a story , that had nothing to do with what anyone was saying.
What do you think about the following comparisons?
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
It's reasonable to compare BG3 and BG2, as long as you keep the time and D&D version differences in mind. E.g., day-night cycle is totally a thing that could be in BG3, and its lack compared to BG2 makes the world less immersive. BG3 is turn-based, meaning that it's easier to micromanage all your characters and there are less trash fights, at the cost of combat speed [and smoothness of transition between exploring and combat].
