Interesting, but I don't think (even without taking into account the "Criticism" section) it can be applied to CRPGs. I was very careful to put the "C" every single time because, while related, CRPGs are quite different from table-top RPGs. By simply excluding both the Game Master (no way to improvise, add meaning above and beyond what could be predicted and accounted for) and other Player Characters (again, no way to improvise and adapt the in-party interactions) makes for an environment so different from TRPGs that they are bound to be perceived very differently by players. While it's possible to grind in TRPG, it's utterly impossible to grind for 60 hours. CRPGs also have a clear ending - either as an end of a story, end of content, or end of leveling up. The MMORPGs may come closer to TRPGs, but the "massive" scale also makes for a drastically different environment compared to 3-6 party members + GM. The closest to the TRPG would be co-op multiplayer in the vein of Baldur's Gate, but then again - no GM and technical limitation also make it pretty different. If I recall correctly, Neverwinter Nights tried to introduce a multiplayer with a GM, but then the problem became the amount of work needed to get to the expected amount of detail; it was simply too much effort for a single GM. MMORPGs side-step this issue by employing hordes of developers and admins, on top of encouraging player-made content.
TL;DR: I think the distinction of CRPG vs. TRPG is useful, and directly comparing the two doesn't work that well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_theory