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)
I disagree with pretty much everything, especially the first 3.
The story of BG3 is full of holes and simply doesnt work when you look closer at it. The writing is severly inconsistent and often contradicting to what happens in the game. And Larian can do exaxtly 3 character tropes. Which they use for the BG3 companions multiple times and the rest is filled out with sex and thirsting. None of the companions is especialy memorable outside of people simping over them.
Same. I also would vehemently disagree with most of the meaningful comparison dimensions made above. And the ones I'd agree with, such as graphics and VA, are ones that are completely irrelevant to me.
