No, there are things that are just that simple. The problem is that you make use of something you argue against then use it in something that seems to be another context when in reality it is unfair to make them look like two different contextes because there actually is only one in our argument and all these things play a role together (and what you think of as Japanese mindset can only be called Japanese mindset for leading it back to where it comes from otherwise it would not be called Japanese mindset in the first place but I have a problem with acting like there is only one Japanese mindset because it is incredibly discriminatory against Japanese as well as their games). As a matter of fact you want to oversimplify things yourself by saying "JRPGs are just those with trait xyz" and telling me I am arguing in an oversimplifying way by actually mentioning a trait that, when led back to the very beginning, was always a real thing. Basically yes, those are two different contextes. But even your context makes use of my argument so it is redundant to even see it differently. Especially because what you think of reduces JRPGs to ideas that do not allow them to become different.
Who says the names are based on any design philosophy? Who exactly? JRPG design philosophy alone is something that does not even exist when making the first JRPG ever. And then another RPG in Japan is made that is different from that. What is the JRPG now according to your logic? And as said already, even if that is a given, the entire "each culture" argument you use cannot be used without acknowledging that what you think of as JRPG was, let's say it is 1982 and we live in Japan and make the first RPG ever, was called JRPG because it came from Japan. How can you even claim that only a certain mindset can be used to influence what you think you know as a RPG? This cannot be the case at all. Imagine these games would have started out differently. They would have been made with what you call another philosophy than the one you think you know as the philosophy as JRPGs. But they would have no right because some thought about an apparently superior philosophy is only able to magically make something a JRPG? No. No at all. Back in the days we knew JRPGs for certain aspects. That is totally correct - but they were still called JRPG because they have been led back to Japan. As said, your "each culture" thing even partially makes use of it so I do not even know why this is argued about. It is really just unfair to newer games because it means old Japanese mindsets have defined and influenced what we knew as JRPGs but new Japanese mindsets cannot influence them as well.
Of course Sushi originally comes from Japan. When I make Sushi this exact Sushi is German nonetheless. Now if you ask "and why is the original idea of sushi Japanese?" then you are perfectly agreeing with me because then you once more would have to make use of the origin explanation as you have done multiple times while trying to tell me otherwise. Origin always plays a role, in one way or the other. You cannot simply forget it. Not even in your own argument. And while you seem to be so eager to argue about subgenres and all from nowadays I say that, and I am repeating myself here, you are simply giving a genre a treatment that is not fair at all by reducing it to something like "ideas that only like this can define it with the country not playing a role except when you need it for your own argument".As the subgenres evolved, the names don't necessarily describe the nation of origin, but rather the style of games' it is influenced by's nation of origin. Like I said, a practitioner of Austrian Economics does not cease to be so when they aren't Austrian. Moroccan cuisine does not suddenly become British cuisine just because it's prepared in the UK.
No, I have not noticed because anyone I have talked to flat out says Dark Souls is a JRPG. All I can see is you trying to say the philosophy you think of is superior to the origin argument even though the old philosophy also made use of its origin.have you noticed Undertale is called a WRPG or Dark Souls isn't classified as a JRPG?
As said, only if you are unfair and do not let them evolve. Or to answer you fitting: "No, all of them are Japanese Role-Playing Games. There is just a difference between a Japanese Role-Playing Game that we know as classic with traits we are used to (that is what it should be called and not the reducing "Japanese-styled" as if there can only be one Japanese style) and a Japanese Role-Playing Game with traits that we are not used to. They will always be Japanese Role-Playing Games though".EDIT: There is a difference between a Japanese role-playing game and a Japanese-style Role-Playing Game (JRPG).
Anyway, I'm outta here.
I hate trashypedia by the way but even they immediately acknowledge the origin.