It's literally real 3D. Do you think only pseudo-3D-in-2D is real 3D, while actual real 3D is just a 2D hack? It's ridiculous.
Early 3D games didn't have polygonal models and the levels were actually defined by a 2D grid (making it impossible to climb "on top" of something as each square could only be blocking or passable but had no "height"). Objects in the game world were drawn as 2D sprites on that 2D plane but it was all rendered in perspective to give the illusion of 3D.
Nowadays we call those games "2.5D" to distinguish them from modern 3D games which can render arbitrary polygonal objects.
This display is 2.5D. It basically "renders" a rectangular 2D texture with a low-resolution depth map by painting the texture on the screens and then extruding the screens according to the depth.
I still call it just shy of '3D'.
(Canonical example: the Earth is a three-dimensional object, but looks 2D locally (at a neighborhood of any given point).
"pseudo" basically sounds like "sudo".
Compare to German where the way it's spelled is exactly how you'd spell it if you first heard it (and speak German). We don't drop the "p" and we pronounce "eu" as a diphthong as in other Germans words (sounding like "oi" in English).
As a German this is why I almost never misspell it in English. It looks the same as in German and is a loanword in both languages, so I tend to sound it out the German way even when thinking in English.
It's sort of like going to a play and then saying you just watched a 3D movie.