That's basically what I'm saying.
Konosuba would be another one that people recommended but I thought was like, just, empty of any value. I watched a couple of episodes, I could see where it was going, it wasn't particularly attractively or impressively animated, and it seemed to have nothing of value to say. It's like, I can tolerate something being mid if it's at least a historical or cultural artefact or something, but this isn't even that.
It is a comedy show. I wouldn't expect it to be impressively animated or have historical or cultural relevance. That would be like watching Space Balls and complaining that there isn't high drama or that the costumes are silly.
I mean, it literally opens with the main character dying of shock thinking he was going to get run over after saving someone. It is MEANT to be lampooning isekai tropes. Why would you go into it expecting it to be something it wasn't supposed to be?
Re: polyamory I feel like it's fundamentally very misguided (and that's putting it politely) to draw a connection between that and harem fantasies. Insulting, even. Real poly situations are complex and require hard emotional work from the people involved to make them work (and often they can't) and even stuff like literal planning/calendars from the people involved too, and tend to be above-board and acknowledged by all individuals (if they actually function, and aren't largely exploitative), and are extremely rarely (I mean, it's probably happened but...) "one immature and unexceptional guy and a bunch of hot babes who are smarter, stronger and cooler than him", which is the typical harem situation.
Right, but.. how do I put this into words... an example maybe?
"Recently" in One Piece there was the character of Yamato, who is potentially a transman. He was born as a girl, but was so inspired and moved by a male character, that they began identifying as that person, shaping their life and motivations to be that person. Many people that they were a great depiction of a transman, many others thought they were very poorly handled. I was watching a reviewer talk about this and comparing Yamato's depiction to transwomen or potentially non-binary people like Bon Clay from far earlier in the series, and they had a theory on why Yamato's depiction wasn't as good. And that was that it was very likely that Oda, as a middle-aged Japanese man, had a better understanding of Transwomen, as they have existed longer in Japanese society, than he did of Transmen, who are only just now starting to find a place in Japanese society.
I bring this up to make a point. Can we always discount the idea that the execution was just poor, due to lack of experience? How a Realistic Hero Rebuilt the Kingdom has a "harem" but it is much like you describe a polyamorous relationship. The first wife is organizing schedules and making a calendar, everyone is acknowleding and accepting the situation, and I believe for some of the wives there was even a trial period before they were accepted to see if they could emotionally mesh with the group. It is kind of my ideal when considering these shows.
Yes, some of the shows out there have crappy, bland men who just have multiple partners because it is a male fantasy to be desirable and irresistible. But I've seen more shows CRITICIZED for that crappy writing than I have ever seen praised for it. And there have been a few times that I have seen something like that... but there are hints, concepts, that they were going for something else and just failed. Sort of like Hallmark Movie Romances, where the female lead almost invariably cheats on a perfectly nice and fine man, leaving him for the sexier man the movie has as their romantic lead. If taken seriously, most of these women are heartless adulterers, but that wasn't the intent of the writers, just them doing a bad job. So, when I see a harem in a show, I try to not judge it immediately for being poorly written, and instead try and see what the intent of the author was.
So the difficulty I'm seeing is this - the only person I know IRL who recommends anime is my brother - and he doesn't recommend Isekai (unless you count time travel, which I don't). So I'm talking about the countless internet lists of "good anime" or the like. And they're really holding Isekai to a different standard - but not always! Some reviewers just never seem to recommend Isekai. Others rarely do, and only with a health warning. Others still (perhaps the majority), who often generally have good recommendations I'd agree with, drop in Isekai and praise it just like it's a perfectly normal show.h
And with the sole exception of I'm in love with the Villainess, every single Isekai has been dire. Even Villainess is only interesting at all because it's dealing with some stuff seemingly not much discussed in Japanese society, despite being very much present in it. Japan seems more at peace with same-sex relationships than much of the world, but seems to typically see them as one-offs, rather than fundamental to the person's orientation (I.e. "this man just happened to fall in love with this other man" - something more akin to pansexuality). At one point Villainess has to basically "explain like I'm five" re: homosexuality as an orientation (and to be fair it does execute on this very well - with less waffle and sentimentality than I think a Western show would have, but also laser-targeting pernicious myths a Western show might take for granted that "no-one" believes, when in fact people still do). It also doesn't seem to be keen to indulge the nasty tropes, I note (for various reasons).
So what am I supposed to do? Keep trying reliably dire shows? That's what caused me to stop watching anime in the first place!
So I now treat anything that's Isekai as having a massive health warning on it, because as a genre, it's mostly horrible or empty, and as I've said a few times now, people who seem sane continue to sometimes recommend really weak, empty or awful Isekai (specifically videogame-world-themed ones seem to be reliably the worst).
Video-game world shows ARE generally terrible. There are very few good ones, because most of them are clout-chasing after Sword Art Online, which I will never understand why people like.
But, there are things you can do other than excoriating Isekai online to people who don't watch anime.
1) Check tags. It sounds like you didn't realize Konosuba was a comedy show, and you seem to want to watch battle-shonen shows. Many review sites will have tags and plot synopsis's that you can check to avoid things you don't want to see.
2) Find reviewers you trust, or people who make those lists, and compare what they like to what you like.
3) Maybe try a few shows that I've mentioned?
How a Realitic Hero Rebuilt the Kingdom might be borderline for you, But
Ascendance of the Bookworm has none of the tropes you hate and might be one of the best anime (Light Novels are better, but the anime was still good) even if it is much more slice-of-life and has few to zero battles.
The Saga of Tanya the Evil has none of the tropes you've really hated, and is also an isekai with some interesting ideas. Might not be to your taste, because she is a pyschotic little war criminal, but it was a good show I avoided for too long because someone told me she was a Nazi (she isn't. The aesthetic is WWII Germany, but there is none of the eugenics or anything else, they just wanted a surrounded, highly capable military for their war stories).
Grimgar of Fantasy and Ash is also completely without many of those tropes you don't like. Again, no epic battle scenes, because it is a very grim and gritty fantasy world, but it was a really great show I thought was too short and that I've been eager to revisit.
Campfire Cooking with my Absurd Skill is also very funny as a comedy, but avoids all those harem tropes, the main character is basically a salaryman who gets wise to the BS about chosen heroes and sneaks away, using his skill to bring modern conveniences to the fantasy world with some amusing and funny results.
And I'm not recommending these shows to you as some sort of "you must watch these" but more as a proof of concept. Isekai can be different than you think it is. These shows might be able to show you that. And once you are seeing that, maybe it will be easier for you to sift the crap from the quality.
Re: LitRPG - I think it has many of the same problems as videogame Isekai (which I am confident in suggesting directly inspired a lot of it), but they go fundamentally deeper than just "male power fantasy", because it tends to be fundamentally anti-social, almost solipsistic in its mentality, usually about an individual or a very small number of people taking advantage of a system, and given free moral/ethical reign to exploit people because they're "NPCs", however the book tries to phrase it. A lot of it just directly replicates and amplifies the very worst elements of videogame-world Isekai. It's also universally extremely bad written in terms of prose, dialogue, and stylistic elements. We're talking mediocre fan-fiction, have to self-publish levels of bad writing, makes 50 Shades look like Shakespeare-type stuff.
And the cause is the same - LitRPG fans are undemanding re: any element of quality - what they want isn't quality, it's "content" and a specific kind of "content". People getting stuck in videogames and then exploiting the systems to become "the winner" or similar. Combine that with the power fantasy and we see why the trash floats to the top so much. The lack of applicability to real life or people in general means better writer usually just aren't interested, either.
sigh
No. There can be some anarchistic elements, but many of the LitRPG I've read are either very individualistic (I want the freedom to do what I like, but I don't want to harm people) or are actually pro-society (in that the main characters are building a better world). Yes, there are some crap ones out there, but I've actualyl never read a single LitRPG novel that exploited people because they were NPCs, and if I did, I forgot it like the crappy story it was.
The fact that I myself am trying to write in this genre to tell interesting stories already makes me bitter towards the idea that "better writers" aren't interested, especially with the authors I follow who I do respect.
I'm sure, at some point in the next 5-20 years, someone will write a genuinely good and worthwhile novel that is technically LitRPG, one with actual writing skill, something to say and so on. But I doubt it'll be anyone writing in the genre today. Hell, it's already been done as a movie series - The Matrix - but The Matrix was about people and ideas and had themes and subtexts, and LitRPG generally eschews this in favour of stuff like the specifics of exploiting systems or leveling up.
It has already happened. You just missed it. Frankly, you just seem to have terrible luck finding good media. Especially if you've never read a single LitRPG story that you feel was about people, or had themes beyond power leveling.
I would say there is a larger issue with nerd culture and people wanting specifically themed "content" to "consume", and having no real regard for the quality of the content so long as it's the right "flavour", as it were (and that flavour is often somewhat masturbatory). I don't see that as inherently a huge problem, but the issue comes when people either get defensive feeling about it so construct misleading edifices to pretend it's "good, actually" (rather than just something they enjoy regardless), or they fail to see that they're holding it to completely different standards to other, similar media. So-called "BookTok" seems to do a lot of this re: fantasy writing I note. Bad writing but the right subject matter and fantasies will do better than good writing that it isn't as indulgent, even if it won't stand the test of time.
I frankly don't care if a story is going to "stand the test of time". Harry Potter has been massively influential, but if you go back and look at it, objectively, it isn't that well-written. Honestly, go to any point in history, how many movies from the seventies were made? How many have "stood the test of time" that doesn't mean they weren't good, weren't enjoyed by people.
Again, Sturgeon's Law, 90% of everything created is crap. Paintings, sculptures, movies, books, radio plays, ect ect. I just don't see the value in blaming the genre. Fantasy Writing is often derided as low-brow and not about anything real or true by certain sub-sets of literary critics. I don't care what they think, I like fantasy. Sometimes I like fantasy that is decidedly mid-tier quality, sometimes I have a soft spot for poor quality fantasy. But a Genre, or a sub-genre is just a direction, a set of ideas. It doesn't denote quality.