Hot take: Isometric was a limitation of the time and wasn't cutting edge and intentionally going for that style isn't going to make a game automatically good.
More like a garbage take, especially the part where you said that they probably would had done it in 3D, and that these 'limitations' held them back. Reeks very much like the arguments saying how they were turn-based because of (((((((limitations)))))))
On a more serious note, it isn't about making something (((((automatically good))))) when it's about going for a certain design decision. Being isometric is a clear and conscious design decision, not a limitations at all, unless you could actually asks them if they'd done it differently. Maybe the devs from the 80s-90s era, who are pretty much geezers now, would tell you so, but I doubt you'll get that kind of answer from Stygsoft (Underrail) or Iron Tower Studios (Age of Decadence, Dungeon Rats, and the still in-development Colony Ship RPG).
The modern retro wave thinks the limitation of the past are something to be idolized than something the devs back then fought with and dealt with. The old crpgs weren't bad perse, but their limitations kept them back. And being blinded to that leads to stuff like Staglands and Age of Decadence and even Pillars, stuff that isn't as fun as it could be.
You just said how being isometric is a limitation, and that if they could do it in 3D, they would've done so. Well, what do you know, Age of Decadence IS 3D, albeit with a (rotating) isometric camera.
But yeah, going 3D is a mistake, I'd say. Had they done away with it, and also go with fixed camera, they wouldn't have to spend as much time, effort, and resources designing a 3D worldspace to accommodate for the rotating camera. Hell, they could probably have the time and energy to design noncombat gameplay mechanics, like an actual stealth system, instead of having it done through a text adventure a la CYOA.
Luckily, they're finally able to do that with Colony Ship RPG.
