If you ignore the bugs I find Wrath to be the much better game than BG3 for now. (looking only at act 1 of wrath) 1. The narrative makes more sense. While both start epic and then slow down Wrath retains its urgency in its first act especially with the tavern defense and changing areas after the deadline. BG3 goes from "we can die any second" to "Its nothing, lets just loiter around" in an instant. 2. Options. While it often comes down to personal preference Wrath offers a lot more options, from classes, mechanic and even combat mode (turn and real time) while BG3 is stifled by D&D 5E which was made very simplistic for ease of play on paper but leads to limited gameplay options in video games where calculations are automated anyway. 3. Companions are in my opinion better, although it is a bit unfair to BG3 as only the first act is known. Still the characters in Wrath feel much more real and believable, especially when you limit your knowledge to act 1. Only Nenios introduction is handled badly and I would rate her below BG3 companions. Then again you have "Look at me I am a cleric of the goddess of secrets!" Shadowheart. 4. All the little things that add up like weather, seasons, travelling so that you do not have two enemy camps right next to each other.
BG3 looks more pretty and has full voice over, but thats the only advantage I see so far. Maybe some people will like the option to barrelmancy, but I am not a fan. There are some gripes with Wrath when it comes to the rushed final act where the narrative drops noticeably. Thats where BG3 can shine if Larian devotes enough time for development.
