What I DO think is ingenious with Pathfinder is that if you are overwhelmed by options, just select pregenerated fighter, rogue, wizard, etc and let the game decide how to level you up. But for those who LOVE diversity in character creation, who dream up some crazy unique character, you can still make them.
BG3 achieves the very same in a way by introducing the Origin Characters and Tavs. I would argue that the Origin ones will be much better then the pregenereted Pathfinders---due to having their own story, looks and an independent idea behind them, waiting for only to be interpreted by the player themself. And not only that---it should be remembered that the Early Access has created a special situation in which the characters already live in the players' imagination, in spite of coming to existence as if "prior to the proper birthday" that the Launch will be.
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Larian's big claim to fame is that they want to create a game where the player can play it the way the player wants to play it. But it is Owlcat that has actually delivered such a game to me, in the form of WotR, whereas Larian's own game is currently soooooooo far away from being such a game.
Both studios let their player achieve their own way of playing. They just achieve that as they should, that is: quite differently!
Whilst Owlcat suits it through a complicated class and subclass system, which on the one hand many could find too overwhelming, and others on the other being actually attracted to such cRPGs, Larian plants a solid interpretation of another, adding to it fresh air of novelty that is the Character Creator, and the animations, in place of the portraits era. I highly value this step as it reminds me of my own experience with the dear Witcher series. Being a Pole I grew up reading Sapkowski's books, yet it was the Witcher III that let me see Geralt and Yennefer, and Ciri independently from myself, as if bringing them to life, all older as I were, letting me greet my old friends even more warmly.
I'm actually bracing for the same in relation to WoTR and BG3---my character, Silverstrand, will mysteriously be transferred through many Planes from Golarion to Faerun some time before the abduction (or some other event important to the Larian plot). A whole character that is actively being created on my first Pathfinder playthrough has already got its own file on my phone where I fill in the backstory, or the plot already, based on well-developed ideas of WoTR accompanied by my other necessary "fillings-in". All of that is going to play in my head on the first post-Launch BG3 gameplay. That said, I'd fancy pointing out how both games in fact are capable of expanding a mutual player's experience.
Therefore, it's quite fundamental to one again underline that they both hit different spots quite, well, differently---and that's absolutely wonderful! Moreover, the job said to have already been delivered leaves a lot place for reinterpretation still. On the one hand is Owlcat with their complexity of the system, but a relative minimum of the visuals; on the other Larian with their jump in the visuals of the genre that at the same time applies another RPG system.
Ah, one more thing. We shouldn't underestimate the differences between the complexities of the source systems. It's rather easy to miss in such a discussion that it's not only the developers or the takes on the appliance that comes in question, but the very root itself as well.
Iaenns Silverstrand, to be known more bardly as The Bartian Observer.
