Since I was last in here talking about Final Fantasy and other classic RPG stuff here, something else I'd like to bring up that I've had a lot of old-school gamers disagree with me in the past about:
Pure turn-based, menu-based battle systems are a relic of the past, and frankly need to stay there, at least in terms of forward-thinking game design (I mean, if the game is purposefully trying to be "retro", then I won't necessarily fault the design, even if I think there's a better way of doing it).
They came about as a way of emulating the sheer volume of options available to you in a pen & paper RPG, but it's impossible to replicate the nuance of those options. The end result is that such systems will always boil down to rote numerical superiority. You play with numbers advantage, you win. You don't, you lose. The long end of it is that there is no opportunity afforded for true challenge in the game. Just a series of gates guarded by numbers checks. If you can't beat a portion, just level grind until the numbers turn in your favour. The right and wrong course of action for every given scenario can be ascribed to formula.
Now mind, this effect is diluted somewhat when applied in a PVP scenario. Pokemon still manages a deep and nuanced tournament scene due to the level of mind-games that players can apply and skirt around the edge of simple number superiority. At the same time, though, Pokemon is one of the absolute worst examples of this effect in action in its single player mode. Abuse type-advantages and win everything, all the time. It hasn't really progressed much beyond that since Gen 1.
RPGs can never be truly challenging unless they drop in additional aspects outside the menu. Strategy RPGs introduce movement and positioning into the formula to create scenarios where simple numbers aren't enough to win an encounter. Other games, like Paper Mario, introduce some basic timing mini-games into the menu-driven battles, to levy some modicum of player skill into the mix. Very basic additions like that can add loads of depth to a tired system.
I totally, completely and in all ways disagree with this. There's a reason why Dragon Quest, Bravely Default, Octopath Traveller and its like are still hugely popular today. People still like this system. I'm one of them.
As long as there's the audience for it, it's totally not a thing of the past.
Now I will say that I'm glad most of these games have moved away from random encounters and started showing enemies on the map. But the fact that people still play turn/menu-based combat means the genre still has life in it yet.
Maybe to say the systems should be left completely in the past is a bit harsh, but I don't think I'm wrong that any of those games/franchises you suggested really aren't trying to move the genre forward, and are more about appealing to nostalgia.
But I'm going to re-iterate here. Pure menu-driven systems represent stagnation in the genre. There's nothing that can be done with them that hasn't already been done before, and there's no way to move them forward. They present a purely mechanical path to progression forwards. There's always one "best" course of action in any situation, so they can never present a "true" challenge. Or you can think of turn-based RPGs as a puzzle, with a singular, most efficient way to solving it, but with potential for multitudes of other, less efficient ways of beating it just by cludging through. Any way you shake it, if you actually understand the game's mechanics, there's no way to actually "lose" the game.
That's where I'm personally at with old-school turn-based JRPGs, in that it's mechanically impossible for them to present anything approaching a real challenge. There's zero skill involved, only a level of patience you need to have to last them out.