Gradually becoming weaker is actually cool and based on a game (or if you want to be a boring, boring person , make scenarios variated but escalating so you're effectively weaker, ie difficulty is increasing and tactical tedium doesn't increase).
FF8 problem is that you don't get weaker (if you want lol) in a interesting way, just in the same framework as the whole ATB system and when they switch to the flip stravaganza in later games, the arena keep away game, and frankly speaking this is endemic to all square games where even their attempts to "heighten excitment" depend on mechanics introduced in the very start of the game (obscurely) and puzzle bosses, NOT anything scenario based (if you don't count puzzle 1-4 bosses). To the point that a gamer weaned on only this kind of game may think that "this is how you design a game". Even FFT disdains mid battle objective changes (I don't remember all of it, but bosses aside, even enemy reinforcements iirc), the most basic tool of a strategy\tactics game to challenge a gamer.
Of course you can design fine entertaining games this way, but for a company that prides itself on trying things, I feel random battles is something they should have replaced by all setpiece battles at least once. Other, competitor, large games like growlanser IV or radiant historia or legend of heroes managed.
What I'm saying is that square innovates; learnable combos in xenogears, parasite eve various combat systems, heck Bushido Blade crazy ass honor, 1-2 hits kills system, but their games lack that "wow" factor of a satisfying whole game combat experience. What you see at the beginning is what you get, +\- some bells and whistles, and the difficulty curve stays gentle (screwups like no-enc + level fixed dragon encounters aside). And boy are you going to see those bells and whistles a lot, if they don't happen to only become available 3 hours before the end.
And no puzzle bosses with a gazillion HP are not the kind of satisfying combat experience I'm talking about.