I remember I could not for the life of me make a face that would look good at any angle in Mass Effect, so I ended up playing with the default "boxcover" Shepard.

Gee, now wonder if we can customize a female character's breast size. Probably not though, that would be too superficial. Junk is where it's at :P

The vast, vast majority don't care though. Also companies care more about courting the young than anyone else, and the young are very pro LGBT or whatever else. Disney is richer than god and even if their stock is down a bit now it's because of mediocre movie output and things like ESPN ratings, it has very little if anything to do with your culture war.

You're getting worked up, judging others and denying yourself great games for a bit part in a losing battle against the natural cultural change every generation sees. It's just senseless to me. I know it's all the rage right now though, and you can't be dissuaded. See you on the other side I guess.

At the moment I can see only Face, Head, Hair, Tatoo and Makeup Style options in BG3 beta version, and those are very limited.

As far as I know Larian promised an option to select between types of genitals for both genders equally in game but not the size of it, also the pubic hair (the most important thing ever created in human history of RPG making).

So I guess there will be no option for breast size in future BUT current default breast size is more than *enough*, at least I wouldn't complain about it. At the same time what if I'd like to create a super thin slim Elf magician with 0 breast size, hmm? For now every tall race female character looks like a model for an adult movie, I'm not complaining mind you, but I'd expect some option to tone it down, the bust, just a little bit, or maybe to make it a bit bigger ;)

Who knows, maybe they'll add it as well. Otherwise gamers and random people might get vocal over it.

...

Considering that you can only observe your character in the Inventory menu, a few mirrors after pressing the Use action (upper part only), a few elevators only with RTX enabled (only head and hands in version 1.4 and below, haven't played the later versions) - not that surprising to me. I saw a few complaints on Steam and Reddit about bust size if it counts.

And to see all of this, one need to undress the character completely in that same Inventory menu. In intimate scenes, you can admire your hands with implants, fancy! But for the rest of the time, players were forced to dress their characters like beggars.

Also, the developers decided to leave the final cutscene as it is (in 3rd perspective), and for the first time, we can observe our character in game, amazing. CD Projekt destroyed any desire and opportunity to admire the protagonist in pursuit of illusory *immersion* which they break in the process. They lacked the wit to replicate the approach of Deus Ex 1 because gamers can't have only the good things.

In Baldur's Gate 3, although the characters are decently dressed most of the time, we can at least enjoy their good physical shape, plus the explicit scenes gives the full opportunity to appreciate the... the... makeup, yes.
Here, it seems to me that everything will be approached more seriously than in Cyberpunk 2077.

Sure, but since character creation is the first thing you do I guess I expected "look at this degeneracy" takes from the far-Right and "look at this sexist objectification" takes from the far-Left. Instead I barely saw any of it, which is a GOOD thing to be clear. Just surprising given where we're at in Western society right now.

And yeah, I'm actually a huge fan of keeping first-person at all times, but given Cyberpunk's focus on your character's appearance it's pretty weird they don't have Deus Ex or Fallout 4 style dialog scenes where you see your character.

In Cyberpunk 2077, with a certain mod installed and with your clothes taken off before taking a shower, for instance, you can see your virtual schlong dangling about/the virtual pubic hair on your mons veneris when you look down at your feet. Just like you would in real life.
So there's arguably value in Cyberpunk 2077's genital customisability as it adds to and increases immersion in this regard.

If there's similar value to genital customisability in Baldur's Gate 3 remains to be seen. I doubt that there's depiction of the one thing visibly going into the other or the other other (and out and in again), but maybe for some brief full frontal nudity and then either fading to black or showing the act from not too revealing camera angles, like in the Witcher 2 or Cyberpunk 2077.

Can see this making quite a few people reconsider and pick up Baldur's Gate 3 after all:

Why Nerfs and Changes Were Made to Baldur's Gate 3 Last Minute

Basically - despite these last-minute adjustments Baldur's Gate 3 might be the last "proper" cRPG adaptation of DnD before WotC goes full retard with the next "6e" edition in 2024 by putting a few but at the same time probably most-controversial-ever changes into effect:

- complete removal of Half-Elf and Half-Orc from the roster of playable races
- getting rid of the Dwarf subraces (Gold/Shield Dwarf, Hill/Mountain Dwarf)

There's probably more, but these two alone bear quite the potential to cause another mass-migration away from DnD/OGL to Pathfinder/ORC and other more traditional alternatives.

That's a bold statement. It feels like every change in D&D is the most controverisal ever. And I don't see these as such a big deal. I mean, you can add/remove pretty much anything as a playable race on your own. It's the system itself, the underlying mechanics that really matter. If I really like a rule set, I can't imagining abandoning it because of something like that.

But then I haven't had a chance to actually play anything after 3.5, so what do I know.

Agreed, the way I put it may be a little too sensationalist. Maybe not "most-controversial-ever" then (the Half-Orc got axed before, if I remember correctly) but still quite questionable, especially considering the incredibly dumb reason (key words: modernity & sensitivity) behind these changes and whatever else WotC has planned for "6e".

Where it gets interesting is how this is going to influence a Baldur's Gate 3 expansion (or expansions) or sequel(s) even. Or any cRPG with the DnD license, going forward.
Half-Elf, for example was (and still is) already one of the races that was/is picked the most in the Beta, at least from what I could gather.

Was there an official reason for eliminating half-elf and half-orc? I watched one video on this and the guy assumed it was for political correctness, but I hope that's not the case since it comes across more as erasing biracial people rather than protecting them in any way. You could even argue it promotes an ugly kind of "keep 'em separated" thought process.

Though most RPGs don't even delve into biracial stuff, so in the long run I guess it doesn't matter much overall. I'm just really curious what their reasoning is.

WotC already distanced themselves from and in the process categorically ruled out a return to the Dark Sun setting not too long ago, just for its heavy emphasis on concepts like slavery, genocide or superior races' dominance over lesser races.

Tells you everything you need to know in order to extrapolate the course and direction WotC intends to take all their properties on and into. And if it can't be cleansed of the allegedly "insensitive" and "problematic" aspects because they're essential to the integrity of the setting in question it gets locked away, buried under ignorance and is never spoken of again.

Sure, but I guess I just don't get what's insensitive or problematic about biracial children. If anything a progressive should want them to be celebrated, right? It's just weird to me.