I think it’s too early to do a fair comparison. Even EA Act 1 vs say up to the point of controlling armies say.
Dialogue wise yes, in WotR I have had a lot of alignment based options and decisions, and as someone who grew up with d&d and AD&D 2nd, I like!!
That said most of the none “good” options just seemed a little ott or daft. I think sometimes I picked chaotic, but lawful was always wanting you to kill people (slight exaggeration) and Evil seemed bored.
By contrast I have so far had 0 class based options and 1 race based dialogue.
There is also too much time spent on a city travel map annoyingly waiting to see if you get into another pointless encounter that you kill in 3 seconds flat (normal difficulty). It feels like pointless time bloat and unnecessary clicking.
Yes it advances time and yes there is a night and day system, but in a city at war and on fire, meh, who cares.
BG3 prologue is better, though both feel undercooked. WotR’s prologue is just plain bad and the character speech lines are cliche and generic. It does improve as you move towards the end of your time in Kalebres and I’m on board with the story and the characters. In fact I will say that WotR does a better job of hiding the quirks of your party, whereas most of the companions in BG3 telegraph that they have secrets the moment you meet them.
So yes, so far WotR has more of that bg2 feel to it I guess in terms of mechanics, but BG3 definitely feels more d&d in its setup and encounters. Hopefully once more of the BG story elements kick in BG3 will balance out.
