They were "perfected" in parts of game design that are linear and quantifiable, that being hardware limitations, which was the point. Turn-based RPGs were a popular choice in the early years of game design (and continue to be a popular choice for amateur game devs) exactly because they require somewhat less sophisticated programming and resources etc.
I call BS. Action and action adventure games were around long before the turn based RPG. When you put the games side-by-side they use about the same CPU resources: animated sprites, scrolling, etc. RPGs may be not doing it ALL THE TIME, but when the action happens, there's just as much processing to be done as in real time battle systems. You're confusing interactivity with CPU power.
RPGs were the way they were because they wanted to create console/computer based versions of tabletop pen & paper RPGs, which were all turn based. There was no "settling" for turn based, it was a conscious decision by creators, who wanted to create games that reflected the pen & paper RPG genre, and also getting messages from some gamers who weren't happy with the "trigger finger" direction many games were taking those days.
I know plenty of people, myself sometimes included, who know our hand/eye coordination isn't the greatest, and honestly enjoy games where the competition is out of time, so we can plan our moves. The way you talk about it, it sounds like all games SHOULD have been real time. So what about all of us who would prefer to have more games out-of-time?