The problem with "turn-based random battles" isn't so much the "turn-based" part as the "random" part. The solution to the problem, which has been (or should have been) evident since the mid-90s, is simple: don't make battles random. It worked out pretty well for Chrono Trigger, the Mario RPGs, Baten Kaitos, Persona 3 and Dragon Quest IX, to name just a few. Why random battles didn't die out 10 years ago is completely beyond me. I cannot think of a single game that is or would be better off with random battles. I mean, simply making enemies visible on the map isn't an end-all solution to the age-old question of how to keep mook battles in RPGs from becoming tedious and frustrating, but it's a pretty good start.
Turn-based battles, on the other hand, are fine. There seems to be a prevalent attitude within the industry and among the consumer base these days that real-time combat is inherently preferable to turn-based combat. I must emphatically disagree: if anything, I wish more games were turn-based. The way I see it, if the combat in an action-RPG isn't going to be as swift, smooth and sharp as combat in a pure action game, it shouldn't be action-based to begin with. I'd much rather have a decent turn-based battle system than the crude, sluggish, gloopy combat that most action-RPGs go with. I might actually enjoy the combat in, say, BioShock if it were controlled with a strategic menu-based battle system rather than playing as a crude FPS where every encounter just makes me wish I was playing Half-Life instead. Likewise, from what I've played of Final Fantasy XII and XIII, I spent most of the time during battles pining for the silky-smooth turn-based combat of Final Fantasy X, or even wishing for the ATB system back (and I was never a big fan of the ATB system to begin with!).