That's what makes them anachronistic. Not bad, just a man out of time. If you played DOS2, kinda like Fane.
Not that I'm at all invested in this particular debate, but your argument only seems to support the conclusion that games like BG3 aren't fashionable, or as fashionable as their gaming ancestors were at one time or as other types of game currently are. That's not the same as being anachronistic, which would seem to imply that they are necessarily old-fashioned and creating them must be harking back to a previous golden age rather than looking to the future. But the mere fact that the trend these days is towards open world, real time, single-character focussed gameplay doesn't in any way entail that a party-driven, top-down, turn-based game
can't be up-to-date and relevant today. I'm sure you're right that such a game probably wouldn't have as much mainstream appeal, but mainstream is most definitely not the same as cutting edge and forward looking! And there is nothing essentially anachronistic in taking inspiration from the past, as long as a new twist is put on it and modern context is recognised, which I think BG3 is so far promising to do very well.
And I also don't think a landscape in which all big games played in much the same way would be a healthy one for the future of the video game industry. Variety is needed for evolution. I hope that it continues to be the case that all sorts of different games can find enough of an audience to keep the companies that want to make them afloat.
Maybe you've played more contemporary isometric RPGs than me. What aspect of the genre is forward looking? I'm happy for someone to show me that isometric RPGs are not rooted in appealing to old mechanics in a slightly modernized way.
I'll use BG3 as an example:
It uses a ruleset released over a decade ago, is based on and a sequel to a game series released almost a quarter century ago, uses exploration mechanics that have been in games for over a decade and a half, is marketed with appeals to nostalgic characters from the previous game, doesn't even have all the features of its predecessors (D/N cycle?), uses a style of game that reached its market relevance peak almost a quarter of a century ago, has film-like cinematics which were introduced to RPGs over a decade and a half ago, has graphics that are just barely up-to-par with current games, and has the same level of world-and-item-interactivity as games a decade ago (in the case of DOS1, a little under). All I see on this forum is people wanting the game to be more like BG1+2, wanting the game to be more like 5e, wanting the game to be more like this RPG or that RPG.
I see only one place where this game is actually pushing gaming forward: permutations. There is genuine innovation in how Larian is trying to merge roleplay-narrative and the free-form immersive sim.
But isometric RPGs are definitely old-school to me, at least.
Variety is needed for evolution. But a new coat of paint on an old genre isn't evolution. Now, I haven't played Disco Elysium, which apparently is a gamechanger, but I can say that the Pathfinder: Kingmaker and PoE1 were very much backward looking rather than forward looking.
Edit: To clarify, this isn't really a debate I'd be upset to lose. I'd love to be told that there is a way that contemporary isometric RPGs are transcending their nostalgic origins and are moving on as a genre in their own right. I just don't see it?
