While JRPGs also often suffer from static protagonists, they do not suffer the burden of realism that the central european developers always seem to enjoy getting overly bogged-down in.
So while central europeans are often quite strong on mechanics, they tend to fall down on the other two aspects which really define the genre to westerners, that of freedom of choice, which is invariably linked to fantasy (either historical or futuristic in nature).
The very concept of 'low fantasy' is one that only really emerged as a result of the central european market getting larger and its attempts to create games that their own market would like.
D&D and early derivative western tabletop games are issued of war models, from which they kept a first important component, the mechanics of the game. That component defines the rules and the boundaries. Another component is the storytelling, in which the imagination, with the support of fantasy and freedom, defines the social factor. The last component is exploration.
So as I see it, western RPGs have very strong mechanical foundations. And even if storytelling and fantasy were progressively included to make it more attractive, the setting must be defined. Haven't the Forgotten Realms and Golarion become very popular? When a new video game is released, the criticism on how "this doesn't feel D&D" I've seen was not coming from "Central Europe" players, but mostly from Western players.
By the way, I'm uncomfortable with the "Central Europe" / "West" dichotomy, because I live in Europe and I don't feel much difference between, for example, German and French players, or even Polish players. I feel more difference between Western Europe - which much be close enough to UK and the US / Canada, and Eastern Europe.
Gothic comes from Germany, and to me it's pretty much the standard fantasy model that mixes medieval weapons with magic, human and non-human races (limited to orcs if I'm not wrong), realistic and fantastic animals.
The Witcher series by Sapkowski is a fantasy setting, deeper fantasy I would say than Gothic's. The game and the books come from Poland, so from Eastern Europe but rather on the western side of it.
Many other RPGs coming from Eastern Europe (mostly Russia) are more realistic and often post-apocalyptic: STALKER, the Metro series, Atom RPG, Encased, Urban Strife come to mind. Note that the US have their share of realistic zombie-based RPGs but there are also many other settings. Maybe that's what you had in mind, let me know if I'm wrong.
So I see where you're coming from, but I disagree somewhat on the examples. Have Gothic and The Witcher struggled to be recognized as RPGs? Because they were realistic with little fantasy? Maybe Gothic, I don't know it well enough to be sure, but definitely not The Witcher, in my opinion.
I hate to use Wikipedia, but if I only use the references used in Gothic's reception, I see that both European and US journalists recognized it for its story and roleplaying experience, but it was criticized at least by one of them for its poor combat mechanics (but I suspect it's more about the control over the action than the rules, TBC).
As for the freedom of choice being linked to fantasy, I think it's just one dimension of it, and that you can find other dimensions in eastern RPGs, the freedom to comply or not to comply with the system, the freedom of personality and specialty. The fantasy I see - but honestly I have some difficulties to appreciate their culture, is the exploration of extreme environment and conditions, and ways to survive and strive in them.
And, yes, this does even tie into politics, unfortunately, and why games are becoming more and more susceptible to political lobbying, both from the 'left' and 'right'. An RPG should, inherently, be another word for total inclusivity. However, the concept of 'total inclusivity' is literally impossible if you apply any form of 'realism' beyond extremely basic concepts.
That part is not clear to me.