None of these guys get it, imho. They keep focusing on all the wrong things, like the false dichotomy between "old school isometric stat based cRPGs" and "new school console friendly 1st/3rd person games". Some of the greatest old school RPGs were 1st/3rd person, and this distinction is meaningless. You can make a good or bad 1st person or isometric game. Each perspective, each approach have their own strengths and weaknesses, and the problem with all these modern mediocre developers is that instead of coming up with innovative features as companies did in late 90s, early 2000s, they keep pushing out gimmicks and non-starters disguised as design.
Take D:OS games for example, everyone keeps bring them up as these great examples of using the environment. But are they really? In Dwarf Fortress, you can dynamically dig out a large space underground to serve as a reservoir, dig out tunnels from this space to the surface to serve as pipes, connect these tunnels to above-ground rain-pools, put in floodgates and levers, and have a fully functioning well that can be refilled on demand after rainfall, and that your dwarves use to get water. In Ultima Underworld, you could drain a massive indoor pool to reveal a hidden space with an item required to advance the game. What can you do in D:OS games other than keep combining 2-3 spell effects together in a fight after fight until it becomes just a longer way to cast a spell? Can you solve quests using environmental interaction? Can you use it in novel ways or is it just the same "cast water/oil, follow with electricity/fire" over and over?
These AA devs like Obsidian, Larian, inXile are kind of stuck in no-man's land, re-hashing old ideas that are already stale and doing even that in an inferior way. If I was them, I would try to find younger project leads, more willing to take risks, and try to recapture not the ideas and design of late 90s, but the spirit of those times.