Another big difference between BG3 and WotR is how the main character matter in the story.
In BG3 after 30 hours the main character has nothing special. He has no story, no background, nothing else to do or think about,... You're just playing the role of someone that has no role.
WotR introduce a very interresting story. Everyone has it's role in it. Every characters and companions are involved for a reason or another into this war and so is your main. From the beginning to the end every characters write its part of the stories / main quest / side quest.
The character does not write a side quest but he's reacting a lot to others and he's writing the main story more... Choosing a mythic path with it's own game/role play makes him very interresting (the commander of the crusade, is that not epic ?)
In BG3 the main character has no background and no story except the same than everyone else.
20+ hours is too late to introduce the main character's specific role in the story. Owlcat understand it and introduce it right at the beginning. Larian does not and as a result, Tav is mercenary in the story.
I disagree. It's the same in DOS2 when playing as a customizable character, what I felt was freedom, freedom to do whatever the hell I wanted, take decisions I wanted without the whole, hmm, that doesn't fit this character, or having these choices doesn't even make sense, etc. I like the whole no background hero, because this way it's up to me, not the developer to create one.
However, you should also have in mind that no background is done yet, for any character, even the origin, this is something we will get at the full game, which seems to be a thing ppl is forgetting so much around here. We are on EA and have barely ACT1 complete, and ppl already want to judge or make comparison with games that are practically finished and days of release.
