You mean the reflections in the water, right? It looks very nice!
I also notice a boost in the brightness and contrast, it pops a lot more now!
Now, you should know that I have built multiple cameras and lenses from scratch and played around a lot with using the
Scheimpflug principle with those cameras, so please keep in mind that the next bit of feedback is overly nitpicky on the optics of the blur effect by definition :p
The blurriness feels like it tries to be both hybrid of a lense edge-blur and a macro-depth of field blur, but that just makes it kinda unrealistic for both.
A depth of field blur has a specific depth plane where everything is in focus, and outside of that plane it starts to blur. In reality, how fast that happens depends on focal length of the lens, the aperture size, and the angle between the plane of focus and image plane. Given that this is an isometric game we can ignore all of that and simply define a "zone" where everything is in focus, a zone where it is not, and a transition between the two.
In this image, the focal point seems to be the characters in the middle, except that it isn't a plane, it's a
circle. That doesn't make much optical sense, if interpreted as a depth-of-field effect.
However, there is also another optical effect that can introduce that kind of blurring:
vignetting. This is normally caused by the edges of the lens being used, and a mixture of reduced sharpness and brightness at the edges of the photo.
However, this image misses that light fall-off effect, plus the transition from blur to sharp is very harsh: the grass tile on the left of the image goes from sharp to blurry in one pixel, making it really easy to see the "edge" of the shader and breaking immersion.
Also, it
does seem to take depth into account somehow because the head of the barbarian (?) unit in the top-left is in focus, but the background behind him isn't. Same with the tiles in front of the skeleton on the bottom-right. So that results in an optical contradiction.
Again, I'm being overly nitpicky here because at no point did anyone here claim to be going for optical realism. But I do want to point out what people might "expect" based on their experience with seeing lots of photographs in real life, even when they don't know the underlying mechanisms.
Optics aside, what is the intended effect of blurring the scene? Because I'm discussing real-world optics, but what really matters is artistic intent and whether or not that comes out. For me this kind of blurring tends to make a scene feel more like a set of miniatures. Is that what you are going for?