STORY: BG3 >>> WOTR (matter of preference, IMO, WOTR story is cringeworthy and edgy)
WRITING: BG3 > WOTR (but BG3 is just less bad than WOTR)
COMPANIONS: BG3 > WOTR (Regill is great, Daeran is OK, rest are cliches. Clear Win for BG3)
GAYNESS: BG3 > WOTR
COMBAT: BG3 = WOTR (BG3 has superior encounter design, positioning has impact, tactical elements are present. In WOTR win or lose is decided only by how much pre-buffing you did. Install a mod that does all buffs in one click and you win Unfair. But! Still, breaking combat with OP builds of your own making and huge dmg numbers flying about are satisfying)
BUILD DIVERSITY: BG3 <<< WOTR (I love Pathfinder and theorycrafting, WOTR is much deeper mathematically)
GRAPHICS: BG3 >>> WOTR
VOICE ACTING, SOUND DESIGN, MUSIC: BG3 > WOTR
IMMERSION, ATMOSPHERE: BG3 > WOTR
KINGDOM MANAGEMENT: BG3 >>> WOTR (Yes, absence of it is a huge Win for BG3. Owlcat's "kingdom management systems can *** off)
CONSOLE VERSION: BG3 >>> WOTR (WOTR is unplayable on console)
LARIAN >>> OWLCAT (OWLCAT game releases are actual "early access" releases dressed as final versions. OWLCAT games start properly working (on PC only) only a year after release. Also, OWLCAT have extremely negative responses to criticism, releasing public rants about Youtubers who dare to point out the numerous flaws in their games)
Pretty much, but I'd argue on the second-to-last one that such a version isn't needed in the first place. Having to keep things cross-platform when the game was barely put together for the PC feels like a waste of resources that could go into polishing the original experience and adding things like the DM mode and the toolset (the latter we might not even get thanks to cross-platform).
