>>37827939Not OP, but from a design perspective, it's a worst-case scenario solution to the problem "how do we have the player encounter something in a strategy/combat context in this game?"
The original idea of the random encounter was invented in a time where just having things on screen willy-nilly was a risky venture, with few games trying it (good examples being Zelda 1 or Ys). The easiest solution was, since so much of the game was screen-/menu-driven, to simply make combat a screen of its own, and transition to it after a random set of steps, to abstractly imply you randomly stumbled into an enemy.
The problem is that was 80s/90s, and this is 2019. We have technology now that can more than handle having things on-screen to stumble into, as well as even do away with a "separate screen" if a developer so wished. And even then, it's not like they HAVE to just go full-action-RPG.
Example: They could take a page from Tales of Symphonia, or Zelda 2: Show indicators on screen that there's an enemy, even if you can't see what specific on it is. For Pokémon, they could have rustling grass moving around as if a mon is under it, moving through it. So then you could ram into the unknown thing head-long, or possibly have methods to figure out what it is (a la Dexnav).
YES, it's stupid to JUST say "hurr it's old! old bad!", but a good developer should NEVER overlook the possibility of useful iteration (assuming, of course, that GF is either good OR passionate still...)
