Originally posted by Impetus
What I've read so far of this article is so bad, honestly. Like 33% attributing basic level design concepts that exist in all games to Nintendo, 33% acting as if the way things work in one level is the standard for the entire game and 33% the equivalent of where someone draws the Fibonacci spiral over an image regardless of how well it fits and goes "here, this proves its a masterpiece".
Not to mention the idea of reverse engineering design choices is a little egregious, basically your standard "author's intentions" messy stuff.
Reading some of it myself I don't understand your opinion on the article, to be honest.
"33% attributing basic level design concepts that exist in all games to Nintendo" is... ? Do basic level design concepts not count as a core element of level design and isn't worth talking about? The things I saw the article most commonly talk about is stuff that designers use in their levels to manipulate the player into taking certain actions. In Game Design, if someone picks up one object from your game and asks "what is this object's purpose" and you can't answer, that part of your game has bad design. And while we can't really ask Miyamoto on what each enemy in the game does, I think the article comes close or hits the nail on the head for the intentions for the elements it talks about.
"33% acting as if the way things work in one level is the standard for the entire game" ... you mean the concepts such as interceptors that are widely acknowledged and used amongst game designers? If you mean something else, I must've missed it going through the article.