The term RPG is so broad as to be pretty meaningless. When anything from a turn based strategy game, to a first person immersive sim, or third person cover shooter can all be RPGs, the term really doesn't say much. RPG doesn't define any specific core gameplay loop, or any specific mechanic set. To say something is or is not an RPG doesn't really tell you anything.

There is a big difference between western RPGs and JRPGs. These are two very distinct styles that took inspiration from different parts of the tabletop experience.

Western RPGs are generally designed around player expression, and generally begin with a character creation screen. You are playing as your character and making your choices.

JRPGs focus much on the party aspect. Tabletop RPGs are collaborative, you play with friends to tell the story of an group of adventurers. JRPGs take that aspect of the experience as the starting point. The game tells the story of this adventuring party. Player choice and expression is rarely the core engagement. You are following their story.

FF XVI follows this mold pretty accurately. The gameplay is very much that of a spectacle fighter, and you only control one character directly, but XVI is a game about the adventures of a party. Clive is almost never alone in his travels. Despite the shift in gameplay, the structure of the game as a whole is completely in line with this style of RPG.

The author's main complaint is about a lack of player choice. This seems completely at odds with the kind of game this is. Every game he cites to illustrate his points are western developed games. He's criticizing FF XVI for not following the conventions of very different games with very different goals, solely because they are part of a very broad and unspecific genre. It's meaningless.