Too soon for this question. We cannot compare a full game (WotR that already has expansions) that has been out for at least a year (or more? Not sure), with an early access BG3 -- that shows less than a third of the entire thing, and half of its companion roster. We don't even know what the full BG3 story is about (we can't know, bc again, we have less than a third of it).
It's like comparing an excellent apple tree with fruit that's ripe and ready to eat, with a brilliant young apple tree with incredible life-changing potential, but with green fruit that's too green to consume.
Speculating is fine, but comparing makes zero sense at this point.
A fair comparison will only happen about a year after BG3 comes out, lest we forget what WotR was like at launch.... yeah, remember? Ok then.
Sure, this is true if we were providing a final critique of the game 2 games. But we're not, well not all of us anyway. We are trying to point out some of the good things that you can find in the different games, nothing what from WotR would make BG3 even better versus what BG3 does better.
That, I think, is actually quite beneficial. Well, provided anything we say at this point still matters.
