> say supposedly because ...
... because they did not write the compiler for their game.
... because they did not write the compiler for their game.
In Braid's case, it was one developer and he contracted out the artwork, just as much artwork as in those two-person teams. So is it really a single person creation? It either could or it couldn't depending on your criteria (if he made all the critical decisions, some might say he is, while others care more about people who can both code and do art, two different fields that it's rare to find one person that can do both of them well). That's all I'm saying.
Also a compiler is a tool, much like a hammer is to a carpenter. If you want to get that precise then there's no point asking the question, because short of "I found some pretty rocks on the ground and stacked them", there wouldn't be hardly anything that would count as a single person creation.
Exactly, by the same logic Donkey Kong was made by a single person. The art and design was by Shigeru Miyamoto and the development was outsourced to a team of six.
Similarly, building an entire game from nand gates is a different kind of impressive than using an existing game engine + buying commodity art assets. However, using an existing game engine / art assets will probably result in something that looks better and can be more ambitious.
That's like saying a painting isn't a single person creation because the artist didn't make their own brushes from scratch. Maybe true technically, but splitting hairs to the point that it makes the conversation about something else entirely.
I, pencil is an interesting essay, but it's not what OP is asking about, I don't think.