I think that an isometric view is the wrong way to go imo. Isometric may work with games like Zelda but when you're shooting stuff to survive it feels like a glorified Oregon Trail. Or that game Loaded on PS1.
Have you ever played an RTS or an RPG with tactical combat?
Gameplay? Nope. Writing from NV and some location ideas from F03.
Well maybe even some gameplay, I'm not a huge fan of isometric view. I think they could make it a great first person game.
They could make it a first-person game, but they won't. Why? Because it's party-based tactical combat. First-person doesn't work well for that in any game I've seen unless you can zoom out to an overhead view to plan and issue orders to your group.

I agree, but it's still a bit of a high gamble to throw your money at a game we know very little about. Is it a gamble as all video game production is? Sure. But I do believe the lack of real issuing of hard game evidence makes me suspect the game will be very unheard of or poorly recieved.
Yeah, it's a gamble to buy a game that hasn't started development yet. That's not what we're doing, though. We're contributing to the realization of a concept, for better or worse. The idea is that the people contributing want to give the game a chance to be made. Publishers aren't touching it because it doesn't fit within their market research parameters, so if it's going to have a chance to be made funding has to come from somewhere else.
If that's the only reason someone donates to a game, is that any better?
Fargo has been involved in some of my favorite game projects (Wasteland and Fallout included) and I'd like to see him get a chance to make this game. That's what I'm paying for. If the game isn't great (although I hope it will be) I won't be angry that I contributed. That's not the point.

One thing I am confident about is that a lot of love will go into this project.