No, it's not.

http://www.giantbomb.com/isometric-viewpoint/3015-246/

I like Mario games as they traditionally are, an overworld with levels and solid platforming. No open world Mario for gods sake, what kind of idea is that

now it might be fun to have a new mechanic, i.e. like Sunshine had the jetpack and Galaxy had the star traveling.

whatever they do with the next Mario they need a unique and solid concept of WHERE it takes place and something unique regarding the platforming. 3D Land and 3D World were just ehhhh, they lacked a unique and interesting environment. Sunshine and Galaxy were steps in the right direction, Nintendo can literally put Mario levels in any circumstance they want so there's no excuse for generic tree backgrounds and Dreamland esque looking things

I really hope thats sarcasm.

With all due respect, that article is wrong and giantbomb are not an authority on this.

The argument being made is that isometric is only a rendering technique instead of also a distinct style of gameplay, which is absurd. It's not just about perspective. That's like saying that Donkey Kong Country Returns is a 3D platformer because everything is rendered in 3D. It's not. It's still a 2D platformer. That game could be rendered in 4D, and it would still be a 2D platformer.

Super Mario 3D World is an isometric platformer because of its level design and because of the isometric limitations placed on Mario's movement. Changing the camera to be behind the back or freely controlable doesn't change that. All it does is make the game worse to play, in the same way that putting the camera behind Donkey Kong's in Returns would. Mario would still be on an 8-way grid, and the levels would still be built on what is essentially an 8-way tileset. Giving players free control of the camera only screws the player's frame of reference when it comes to movement.

Suggesting otherwise is silly and incorrect.

It could be a good feature but in my opinion it would be better without VR

Open world would be a bit odd, but I wouldn't be against it

Really liked Galaxy and 3D World so I'm fine with whatever path they continue to choose to follow

"Super Mario Universe" with a (kinda) open world mushroom kingdom to explore. I don't like Nintendo's style of "fusing" 2D and 3D Mario elements together starting with Mario Galaxy 2. I think both series should be unique. So instead of trying to make 3D Mario more linear, they should expand on what made Super Mario 64 so amazing: Huge open levels and lots of exploration. If they make it a true open world game or not I don't care. But I want the game to be an evolution of Mario 64 and not Miyamoto's next desperate try to make 3D Mario as popular as 2D Mario.

How about we take the best of Galaxy (planetoids and gravity based platforming), 3D World (proper handling of power ups that open up new options and paths and are not just level gimmicks; also clear pipes), and 64 (more open levels and no locking of stars to individual instances of a level).  That, for me, would make for a hell of a Mario game.

I'm still waiting for Mario 128

Okay I know technically what Nintendo called "Mario 128" had it's ideas chopped up and implemented into other games, one of which was Galaxy, but when I'm saying it I mean I still want a real sequel to Mario 64 that follows it's mechanics.