and if you think "graphics" makes a game better you're probably from the new retard generation of "gamers" who think 80% of a game's quality depends on whether or not it runs on 1080p or not.
To be fair, getting awesome visuals would be the least of the problems honestly. It's just upgrading hardware, easy peasy for any game developer! Many strategy games saw updated visuals without a change to the gameplay - Command & Conquer? Sim City?
And I really don't see why doing the same would be impossible with games using turn based combat. Or why it should not look awesome, if done right. See Pillars of Eternity, Planescape Tides of Numenera. Silent Storm is using a 3D engine with destructable visuals! X-Com Enemy Uknown is also made in 3D.
And the trailer to XCOM 2 looks decent enough.
Seriously, think about it, Doom is as old like Fallout 1 and a couple of games might be older. Yet, sequels to THOSE kind of games, are never seen as outdated. Doom 3 anyone? Soon Doom 4. Why is no one telling ID and Bethesda that the FPS gameplay in Doom is
outdated?
Very simple answer. Clever marketing.
People very often think that visuals and graphic kinda stop with FPS games, like that is the ONLY place where graphics matter or can be actually improved. Because many players today fall victims to brainless marketing strategies and clever product placement, where countless of developers and publisheres hammer a certain message in to gamers. Good graphic = First Person Shooter/action game. Albeit, to be fair, this is the place where most of the visual progress takes place, Far Cry, Doom, Battlefield, Call of Duty, Assasins Creed and so on. Many of those games push the boundaries of visuals, because visuals are a very strong selling point here. It's like sex (appeal) in advertising. It's not that easy to sell people quality writing, depth and complex topics in a culture that is as saturated and broad like today, so they go for flashy colours and fast paced action instead.
This is so effective, that even adults believe that a game like Pillas of Eternity or Wasteland 2 are always
old school, they are hardcore RPGs or games only for nerds, and FPS games or something like Gears of War are next-gen or what ever, despite the fact that FPS gameplay is maybe even OLDER than turn based combat and top down view. And that complexity and depth have nothing to do with the choice in visuals, see Deus Ex 1. Maze War and Spasism go as far back as the early 1970s even. And the 1980s have been full of first person shooters. Third person shooters/action games have been around for more than 20 years as well. There was a pretty awesome evolution in the late 1990s and between 2001 and 2010. Which allowed companies to realize games like Deus Ex, Planescape, Arcanum, Baldurs Gate and many more. This diversity, has been somewhat lost and pushed back. Most of it happens with indepdend studios and kick starter projects now.
The truth is, the gameplay that you see in games like Fallout 1, Jagged Alliance, Planescape Torment etc. is simply not popular, because it doesn't sell trillions of games. It was always a niche. But for people working at Bethesda, Bioware/EA and Ubisoft, games are mainly there to make money, to deliver entertainment (in a similar way as brainless action-movies do). That's certainly ONE way to look at games. But at the moment this is the most popular way, because this is the kind of product that sells 30 million units.
A company like Bioware or Interplay and even Bethesda had in the early days the idea to
use money, to make games. Today, Bethesda, Bioware etc. follow the concept to
use games, to make money.
And this change is visible in the finished products.