That statement is a fact (note the word 'can') and therefore not controversial at all (unless you want to claim real time combat always works better).
With a party, real time combat can force you to control a particular character to avoid problems with AI (an archer running around drawing nearby opponents into a fight, or a mage wasting high mana spells on weak opponents) or do a lot of pausing to micro-manage. The babysitting required in the first large fight in the BG 2 demo made me pass on the game. I've since bought it in a GOG sale, but haven't gotten around to giving it another try.
I never played the demo but a quick Google tells me the demo is basically Chapter 1. I can't recall any large fights in Chapter 1 of BG2. I am going to go out on a limb and assume unfamiliarity with the mechanics made things harder for you than they should have been. If you could describe the fight (like who/what you were up against) I can probably give some meaningful feedback and/or tips
Also you can pause BG2 so it's not "true" real time but RTwP, if you were playing it as a real time game I can imagine it wouldn't have been very enjoyable. As an aside: the underlying mechanics in BG2 are turn based as well (D&D) and iirc you can set it up to pause on every turn (I think only your turns though) if you so please.
There are lots of ways to do both real time and turn based combat well or poorly, and lots of differences of opinion on where exactly a particular system falls on that scale. Personally, I don't have a strong preference for either (the details of how the combat system is implemented would be the determining factor, but just whether it was real time or turn based).
True enough, but since I like party based games (I consider 4 an *absolute minimum* to consider a game party based, depending on game mechanics this could be higher still) and controlling 4 or more characters in real time is just not realistically feasible I have a strong preference for RTwP or Turn Based.
