I still legit don't know where this woke talk is even coming from, nor why a couple of posters keep trying to rail the conversation back towards that topic after a mod legit told everyone to stop. It's almost like this thread was made for an entirely different purpose, because literally everyone who has played the WotR beta would argue that the actual comparison of where each game lies on that scale is actually the opposite.
To continue on the whole 'BG3 isn't really representing the sheer scale of the world it's taking place in yet' topic, you can see this in the companions. Out of the five known companions, we have...
1 Half Elf 2 Humans 1 Elf 1 Githyanki
Among the known datamined companions, we have...
1 Tiefling 1 Human 1 Halfling (One of the most requested NPCs to be turned into a companion is another Elf. A buff one, but still an elf.)
WotR in comparison has...
2 Humans 2 Mongrelmen (mutually exclusive choice, in reality you only really get one in your party) 1 Aasimar 1 Tiefling 1 Kitsune 1 Dwarf 1 Gnome 1 Half-Elf 1 Elf 1 Succubus
On that note, to be fair PF:WoTR has a 6-man-party so it´s logical that they have more companions and are more varied, but also you can say that it was a bg3 design choice to do so.
As a D&D fan I found the world presentation in BG3 is adequate, you have continuous references to the lore, other campaigns of Wotc, and some inside jokes, so I found it familiar and cozy. But I do not know if for people that are not interested in D&D or do not have previous knowledge of the setting; the worldbuilding makes the players invested enough in the world of bg3.
Originally Posted by teclis23
So do you recommend i play Kingmaker or not?
Oh yeah, definitely, it´s a very good CRPG, but it´s somewhat hard and unforgiven, mostly because they do not explain very well basic mechanics; and has a steep learning curve in harder difficulties. Think dark souls Mets nwn2. Many people like it, some do not. I kinda like the kingdom management, I like strategy games, but there is an option to turn it off/automatic mode if it´s not up to your tastes.
That said, I agree with @Saito Hikari that said Wotr is superior to the previous game. They take the first game's foundation and built upon it to make it better. Kingmaker has some complicated mechanics ( it´s based on pathfinder tabletop, very faithfully) but they have little on the tutorial side. WOTR makes better work explaining the game mechanics and it´s definitely more newbie-friendly. My recommendation? unless you have previous knowledge of the pathfinder tabletop or you are patient about getting your ass handed in a game every hour or so; start with WOTR, the beta is on, and the game comes in September the 2th. They have better tutorials. Once you master the game mechanics, definitely try kingmaker. The base game and the two stand-alone expansions are fun to play and have ties to the main campaign. The third expansion adds yet another companion(s) and questline to the main campaign, one of my favorites.
...Or just try kingmaker, after 3 years there are plenty of guides, or ask for advice in the discord or the owlcats forum. There are nice people there.
Another poster @TrytoHanding stated that the game ís very battle-oriented and brutal and yeah, it is depending on your difficulty options, but with options to roleplay in the middle, plenty of dialogues, exploration, and high skill usage. I do not know about the characterization that the game is very warrior-oriented. I finished once the game with a party of 5 bards just because. You can build your party around might or magic, or mixed, all very powerful. As in many games and tabletops, magic-users may reach their full potential a little later, but when they do...let´s say there are one-shotting, enemy-wiping, deadly magic combos. And you still need magic to buff your party, protect them against enemies´ debuffs and kill some enemies that are impervious to physical attacks.
