The thing just is, I like both sides of the equation and don't think technological progress is a bad thing. In fact, I'm a big fan of it. I can see how people whose most favourite pastime is turn-based strategy and isometric turn-based RPG's would be annoyed... but that still doesn't make anything else you're not into "trash."
I think there is enough room for technological progress without making every RPG an First-Person-Elder-Scrolls-Shooter-Like-Game-with-Character-Stats-and-only-One-Character-to-Think-about.
But why would anyone want an isometric view over a top-down 3D view these days? I guess it has its fans, but I enjoy 3D so much better as far as immersion is concerned... from a strategic point of view, I guess isometric makes sense. Anyway, first-person Baldur's Gate 3 wouldn't make any sense at all.
Isometric doesn't automatically mean 2D. But a more tactical game or a Hack'n'Slay is played best from above. Maybe that lacks some immersion, but Torment was also isometric and I think nobody complained about its small degree of immersion. Fallout. Ultima VII. Maybe 1st person makes it easier, even for the most fanciless players, accepted. But not necessarily.
On the other hand, 3rd person / 1st person (i.e direct control of a single character) is the only way one can handle console games. Without keyboard and mouse, controls would be rather awkward on a console. But nearly every AAA project nowadays has to be released also on consoles. The reason behind that isn't technological progress. It's because consoles sell better than gaming PCs, consoles are played on the couch in front of a TV and consoles attract casual gamers more than PC. So you have to simplify your games for the lousy gamepad controls and bring in more action (for casuals). Since most developers are not able to bring in some innovation just like Assassin's Creed did (concerning controls) we only get simplified action RPGs in one way or another. And games are still designed for consoles and male beings, age 14 to 25. Or women, that don't fit to the first group. Or casuals that don't fit anyway. Unfortunately that results in nearly all titles becoming console action games, even pure PC games.
A more tactical game like Baldur's Gate doesn't sell on a console, so nobody wants to make such a game anymore. Even NWN2 tried to get rid of its roots with dumping marquee mode and multiselect, forcing the player to leave the companions to AI just like KotOR did (which was mainly a console game). Official dev statement: We didn't think that there would be a claim for this. Uhm? Sry? Didn't OEI say that they wanted to make a spiritual successor to BG2? Full party control? Isn't NWN2 a PC-only release? So why the heck are you presenting us a console gaming inspired bastard instead of making it fit to the platform you're releasing it for and the target audience you wanted to transfer from the old title to this release?
Personally I want to believe, they wanted 3rd person mode at all costs to attract some of the oblivion gamers, too, and didn't have enough time left to adjust controls for isometric view. First person players are the majority, bad luck (or at least the most common compromise)
Because having to swirl the camera around to the right angle constantly ruins the gameplay. (c.f. Neverwinter Nights to Baldur's Gate, Heroes of Might and Magic 5 to its prequels, etc)
If only game makers would understand that just because it's 3D doesn't mean you need to use a perspective camera - an axonometric one is much better suited for some types of games.
I think they could easily solve this problem if they would overhaul their blank out function (correct term?) for objects like trees or buildings. I think that could serve for both, isometric fans and full 3D fans.
@BG3:
I'm quite sure that Atari has plans to release another D&D game. They bought D&D licence for another 10 years, so there must be plans. But I also think the next one will be more mainstream than NWN2.
If it's gonna have to be another BG, it's definitely just for marketing reasons.
