But you're only referring to the majority of RPGs actually available. So that leaves pretty much Diablo 1-2. And that wasn't so much an RPG as a mega-clickathon on one level to fortify your stats to clear the next. Bleh.
I agree, Diablo isn't an RPG. It's an action game with stats. A poor action game, at that.
To me, an RPG is all about immersion. I want to be immersed in the game's world and believe that the characters within it actually have some modicum of intelligence.
Turn-based combat, while useful for handling a party, really sucks you out of the immersion by forcing you to take turns during a fight for your life. In an RPG where you only control one character, turn-based combat really isn't necessary at all, as you can make all the same choices with real-time combat. The only difference is that you have to make them much more quickly.
On the other hand, the benefits of real-time combat are plentiful. You never suddenly switch from a real-time game world to a turn-based combat system and thus, you never get pulled out of the game. In addition, you get to make more choices as you are not limited by turns. And of course, you never get a chance to sit around ponder your next move, making the whole encounter far more intense.
As for stats, I believe they are important for RPGs but should not be the
only thing driving gameplay. The main purpose of stats is to ensure that the player is actually playing a role. If, however, every action's success is dependent solely on one's stats, there's a strong sense of detachment between the player and his character. To create an immersive game, you have to make it feel like the player has control over his actions. Relying completely on stats takes this control away and makes it feel like the player is simply ordering his character around rather than actually
being that character.
The best way to ensure player involvement while maintaining the purpose of stats is to strike a balance between the two. Allow the player to aim where he wants, attack when he wants to, etc. Just make sure that the efficiency of these actions is largely affected by stats. For example, if a player chooses to wield dual pistols, the accuracy and recoil of his shots would be affected by his dual wield stats. If a player wants to be stealthy, he should be able to hide behind cover or in shadows and his stealth stat should determine how well he can do this. A player with a maxed out stealth stat would be able to peak around corners without being seen while a player with a low stealth stat would be noticed rather quickly. Balance between character stats and player skills is key.
Of course, the best perspective for an RPG is a first-person one, as it is the one that we can relate to the most and is thus the most immersive. Conversely, isometric perspectives are the worst, as they severely limit your view distance and prevent you from looking where you want, when you want to. Good for party-based, turn-based combat? Sure. But then, I don't like parties or turn-based combat in my RPGs.
With these considerations in mind, you can see why I disagree with all the people who claim that a good RPG must be turn-based and rely entirely on stats, as all the "classic" RPGs did. I think that the mold set down by Oblivion is a good one. Bethesda got the perspective right and the player involvement right. Now they just need to work on giving the player more high-level choices and having these choices make a meaningful impact on the game world.
Of course you're right there, but it does make me wonder what RPGs you actually played in the past few years going by your passage.
KOTOR1&2, Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines & Redemption, Morrowind, Oblivion, NWN1&2, Gothic 1,2,3... pretty much anything that's come out, I've played.