Well, if were only talking about AAA RPGs, then yes, there is more reactivity to race and such then those.
IIRC, DAI had some reactions to your race and Starfield has a bit too for skills/backgrounds.
Even then BG3 kinda fails in Act 3 where, aside from the general decrease in reactivity, noone reacts if your half illithid or the Slayer form (citation needed), which feels really weird at times.
But also considering indies and older titles, which he himself includes with Vampire Survivors and HL2 (and neither of these are "Modern" productions), can usually be better for learning from, given they have to be more creative/innovative to make up the difference vs AAA, who run by what works.
And so for these indie games, like the POE series and DOS2, the "old standard" never went away, they just never got widespread appeal and given that BG3 is probably the highest sold CRPG ever, I think it's more accurate to say that BG3 just showed a ton of people "standards" that have been around for the last decade, if not since the 1990s.
However, most of those games mentioned, BG3 included, while the reactivity makes the game more immersive, it doesn't really change how your story/game plays out (Which goes against why he chose BG3). Your not locked out of any content and no skill check/pathway requires a specific race/class; You might get a bonus to the roll or outright skip it, but thats about it.
The only game(s) (that I know of) where your race (and sometimes Gender) can actually affect your character's story by locking you out of certain factions/areas or opening up others, is in Kenshi.
(Tho, I guess DOS2s' Undead race (Assuming you go helmet-less) counts as well and I believe Arcanum does this with other elements of your character, but I admittedly havn't played it)
