Not telling you that isometric is better, nor that isometric is older than 3D (just do a bit of research, see that they coexisted for decades), but i am more an isometric player, regardless if it is for simulation games, stategy games, tactical games, RPG. I like managing my units, i like to have a clear view on the areas, where the units are, where they go, what they do, and have a seamless mouse-based control of things.
I think FPS view, on the other, not only have cluncky control, but also messy overview of what his happening. Not only it relies on player *skills*, but also their constitution, their arbitrary reflex and number of fingers, but also don't translate well anything other than lanscape\scenery porn or quick action. Sometime, a nice atmosphere can be brought up, but the same three things can apply with isometrics. On the other hand, isometric can bring much more, as it is less cluncky and messy. You have a clear view of things, can manage more things. An turn-based goes even further with giving each action its own time, so you can't miss a thing. You have time to appreciate what is happening. Plus, there are gaming situations that could simply not happen outside turn-based gameplay. Think of the missions like the APEX in Shadowrun Dragonfall. All your team members are in different locations, real or in the matrix, and they all have to handle enemies coming toward them and preventing them to reach their friends or the macguffin they defending. It allows you to control all the characters in a situation which everything happen in *the same time* at different places.
Also, i dislike current trend of continuous gameworld. Not only, there is too many of them, but also it has many flaws.
- World building isn't always good, while it matters even more.
- Quite often, there is *fast-travel* instead of means of travel.
- There is too many fillers between relevant locations (when there are some relevant locations)
- At the same time, the time to travel between those location is boringly too long, and way to short to not suspend disbelieve.
- The locations themselves are often too tiny or/and with too much filler inside.
- You cannot reasonably have too different cultures, too many settlements, and too different weather at walking distance to each other.
- This isn't *open* world. It is claustrophobicly enclosed world. You are restricted into one arbitrary area and cannot travel anywhere else, or they would have to implement ingame all the meters\miles of grass\sands\rocks between your location and your destination. So you just there, in one areas, watching the same acres of grass\sands\rocks forever...
- I am quite a walker myself. I like to do it in real-life. While i don"t mind the idea of walking simulator, i don't want it forced upon the games i like, especially while the system flaws are currently so glaring. And i doubt the walking simulator would have any chance of success as long as you have to virtually create the place. It won't beat the fun of actually walking.
- Those games rely so much on technology porn and and photorealism that they never age well. They feel outdated within a couple of years. They feel more like engine prototypes that need their next update (that the playerbase end up doing for the dev), than some other games which relied more on a less visually realist design and survived better the impact of time. ( for instance, Fallout 4 already visually need an update to reach the unreacheable goal of copying the reality, while the design of the Worms series don't need graphic update as it still manages to visually convey what it conveyed at release)
