all good examples to show the limitations.
zelda 1 has almost no dialog and has zero storytelling in the game itself. all of those bits are in the manual.
zelda 2 and simon's quest fare better in storytelling but fall short. the towns barely feel alive with small talk that doesn't really make much sense. npcs say just enough to point you in the direction you need to go.
haven't played the others you mention, but i know startropics is basically zelda 1 but different. so, i would assume is has similar shortcomings.
the limitations of the nes made ambitious games read very stiff. npcs aren't allowed to have more than a few lines of dialog, so they go to the point. which is good in a way but makes them poor for storytelling.
But by your own admission, the limitations of the NES affect both turn based and action games. The choice was make a limited RPG game or make a limited action game. Its not like the NES RPGs were dramatically better than the action versions. Perhaps they could better convey a sense of scale with the pulled out map and exploration, but that's about it.
that is the point i'm trying to make. newer hardware made developers able to have action AND npcs capable of actual dialog, not just directions.
also let's not forget that animations are very limited in those games, so the actions you can perform also are.
the sprite limit made impossible to have many things happening, there is a limit to what can happen on screen.
that's why we started to see proper action rpgs on the snes, because better technology allowed for it.
That is true, but the sprite limit affects turn based RPGs equally, especially those like Final Fantasy where there's some amount of animation to the characters.
turn based gameplay allowed them to have screen filling effects to demonstrate the action they were trying to achieve. they have full control over what happens, how much of it and how often.
for example, spells in tales of phantasia on the snes pause the gameplay while taking effect because of it.
final fantasy games on ps1 were able to show high quality effects because they happen one at a time.
i could go on, but i think i made my point clear.
Yeah, that is true. The effects are more impressive in early RPGs than action games because of the non-real time factor. They are essentially FMVs being played while the player is gaming. It could be argued that the FMV style of PS1 games is a detriment, but I see your point.
I think by the PS2 era, action games were starting to have equally impressive graphics as the turn based ones though.
there are no such limitations with today hardware, so they can do away with turn based gameplay if they choose to.
That is true, but I'd argue that from the PS2 era on, they probably could've done away with those games and they didn't.
i enjoy turn based games, but most developers and "modern audiences" don't seem too fond of them.
I feel like it is a self defeating prophecy. Whenever a turn based game comes out and it is well made and has some impressive visuals behind it, it generally sells well. If it is just a middle of the road game like many we've seen before or some nostalgia bait, then perhaps that is true.