If you choose to use
computer graphic terms to describe
player perspective, that's your choice, though it will be difficult to have meaningful argument if one has to guess if the terms you use represent their meaning, or one you made up for them.
I'm not entirely sure why you linked to first person: whatever is or isn't being discussed, it's definitely not that.
Although one could argue it's a bit of a technicality (and I
might argue that as I did engineering drawing back in... well, about the 18th century), isometric is colloquially understood to mean a bird's eye tactical view as opposed to a third-person being-in-the-thick-of-it view, and that has been the situation for very many years now. Yes, the terms have been inaccurately conflated, and yes, it is often possible to switch or even zoom between views since they're both 3D, but it's just the way of things.
I suppose a true isometric view may be regarded as something like "2D isometric" nowadays even though I accept it's a tautology; but IMHO it's more of an anachronism. Though my opinion may be of dubious relevance as I am not the most widely-travelled gamer, the only "2D isometric" game I've played in recent years is Tyranny, and while I enjoyed it, for me personally the seemingly artificially limited perspective detracted from the game rather than enhancing it. Which is as subjective a point of view as can be but my feeling was one of it trying to enforce the vibe of a bygone time and succeeding in a way that didn't flatter it.
