I don't think it's caused by adhering to an idealistic view, though. Comic books are cyclical and static because they're neverending, they have to keep pretty much everything the same, from the status quo, to the characters, to the cities they inhabit, to the problems they face. Everything has to be reset at some point.
That idealistic view it's pretty much a tone and theme setter, after that you have a lot of wiggle room to do a lot of different things with it. It's not limiting per se, it's a deliberate choice in terms of what rules the story is going to adhere to.
I don't agree with any of this, it's all just apologetics. You're taking the status quo and looking for justifications. There is no good reason why comic books should be truly endless. In an ideal world the Batman saga would have a clear beginning and end. Like old myths it might span thousands of entries, but it should lead to a certain point and actually end. That's the only way it could have meaning.
Instead, for purely commercial reasons, it's going in circles for all eternity. It's about as intellectually interesting as watching a dog chase its own tail.
I doubt any creative person who has written a Batman comic and cares about the setting, actually likes this. They accept it, what else should they do, after all. It's not them deciding what happens next, but a giant faceless company, but I doubt it would be so if there was no commercial incentive.
And I hope Falcom actually fnishes Trails, and moves on to other things. Maybe tell a wholly new story in an yet unexplored part of the world, but actually starting from scratch, as far as possible.