I'll agree that BG3 is trying to be something that WotR isn't. It's doing something else, trying to be another kind of crpg. I think that's good, it's healthy for the evolution of the genre. And I think there is a lot of merit in what BG3 is trying to be. My opinion though is that thus far, Larian has only been doing an okay job at achieving that, whereas I think that WotR has ultimately excelled at what it was trying to be. I can't think of any aspect of BG3 that I like better than WotR. Even in terms if graphics, BG3 is higher fidelity, but nothing I've seen has blown me away the way that the invasion scene in the prologue of Wrath did. And Wrath managed to blow me away several times with what it did. BG3 is going for higher fidelity, but it can't compete with other stuff that's going for the same thing, while Wrath is pushing its style farther than its been pushed before.
The companions? Wrath's companions feel like a real group in a way BG3s party barely comes close to. They feel like they have chemistry with each other, dynamics within the party that make them stick in my mind in a way BG3s companions don't. I think BG3 companions are good, but nothing special. I'm withholding full judgement since we don't even have all of act 1 and everyone has potential.
Choice-specific dialogue options? Wrath blows BG3 out of the water. So many little and big tweaks based on who you are. Not to mention the mythic paths. BG3 does really well here, though. Ploy and story? I think Wrath wins again, but that's even more subjecti e than anything else I've mentioned. I agree that Wrath's plot is more simple, but I think it's in service to our character, allowing us to shape the story and be the focus in a way we don't and aren't in BG3. Meanwhile I think the story is more important than our characters in BG3, which some people will like more. I personally don't feel especially engaged in BG3s story, but I also think the storytelling in BG3 is genuinely kinda weak. It's scattered and seems allergic to giving us good anchors into the setting. I'll keep saying, but act one seems insistent on us not caring at all aboutthe stuff happening in this area and wants us to forget about the place as soon as we leave. Meanwhile even from act one Wrath was consistent and clear in its storytelling.
And finally, role-playing. I think Wrath provides a better role play experience. Our character actually matters, we're able to fully project onto them, we have a wider breadth of choices in conversation, etc. This is also super subjective though, since BG3 does give a lot of options for doing things in the environment, but I've been trained by other rpgs to feel like if there isn't a text box involved, choices don't "count." So things that involve messing with the environment don't actually feel like role-playing to me, they just feel like gameplay. Speaking of gameplay, I think the gameplay in BG3 is lackluster. I feel more urge and interest in playing Solasta for the gameplay than I do BG3. Its serviceable and that's it. Meanwhile I think Wrath gameplay is pretty fun, but I also have options to let me just barrel through it when I just want to get to thr story.
