Honestly there's a decently solid reason why so many games favor a cutsey aesthetic and not a dirty one when they go to 3D.
The advantages of going with a 3D aesthetic is that its way less work to reuse your work, but if you just reuse your work endlessly you get something that leaves people with a dry taste in their mouth because if you keep showing people the same exact scene over and over again, quite a few people are going to burn out. Sure, you can have 30 different models use the same animation, but what for?
The furries do get more successful 3D games than we do, but you don't need a telescope to see why this isn't exactly desirable... (Just browsing itch IO, Inheat seems to be a major example of what I'm talking about here since I don't need to look very far to see like 12 different characters using the same animation and body types that are "Large but like, varying degrees of very large where I couldn't describe them with different verbs except in relations to each other.")
If a games small and about a slice of life instead of being sexy first, well, survival, RPG, and life sim mechanics are something people find satisfying and are less prone to getting bored of if you see the exact same scene with little in the way of variation... Meanwhile, in the nsfw space, there does seem to be a bias for games where each character/enemy gets their own meaningfully unique scenes. Doing fully unique models and animations in 3D takes far more time to do for the average developer than it does just drawing a new variant set for a CG. (Imagine in monster girl quest if every fox had the exact same pose and attacks, the fox fanbase would maybe be 3% as big.)
Its not that the potential isn't there for something really good and unique, there was that one monster girl labyrinth demo that was kinda classic 2d zelda inspired with unique animations including XRay models and everything for each monster (I don't remember the name, but its in the archive, if you want to find it, you can probably go back 10 threads and see people get really disappointed,) but the developer basically made 2 enemy types, decided "I'm going to die if I keep up with this," and then went on to another project (Or gave up on projects alltogether, I'm not really sure.) The potential exists, but the risk is also huge.
With the sheer number of games coming out now, its probably going to be a lot harder for groups of devs to actually form a coherent team as competition gets worse, and sales get more uncertain (The ratio of games coming out to actual people buying games means you need to lock in an audience before you can really be sure you can hire helpers,) more and more pressures are going to turn towards what a single person is capable of without alienating large segments of the market (Market alienating behaviors can be worth it... If you get lucky, but look at it from a creatives perspective: Are you willing to gamble your life away? Are you able to survive the ridicule?) The sorts of projects that wouldn't be a problem for a software house of 24 people are going to be uncommon for individuals.
Making something carries a big risk, spending thousands of hours of your life on something that doesn't pay off has to be really satisfying to you, or really rewarding to you for it to be worth doing. Artists have limited time in their life, motivation, and actual resources. They probably aren't going to succeed if they die inside, or, you know, actually die. Looking at the stats, even if they don't run out of these resources, the odds are they still fail to draw an audience and fade out in silence.
So, we have to live with the things that get made by the currently sane average team size, at the sane level of risk (Social, time wise, financial, chance of completely failing to draw an audience,) that developers feel is worth taking.