liammillay said:
Yes, it is true. Just think about it. Play through a game, and see what parts you find fun. Then you know what is fun in a game.
And if you pay attention to how the levels are designed in a bunch of games, you will know how to design levels, based on what you see in the games.
No. Just don't decide by yourself what is or isn't true based on what you think is more likely. Especially since you don't seem to have the slightest idea of what you are talking about.
Game design is hard. It is not a whole profession with about three years of studying for nothing.
There are so many things in games that greatly improve your gaming experience and that you don't even notice while playing. Difficulty curves, bonus items placement, mapping, user-friendliness of the gameplay and the controls, implicit and explicit guidelines, smoothness of the different sequences of events, ratio action/story/reflexion/exploration, the dimensions of platforms, houses, hitboxes, the space between two (or more) decorative features, the implementation of said features and how they both contrast well with actual gameplay elements and blend well with the background, the textures and the other decorations...
You don't have a lot to think of when you make a game. You have a
LOT.
You can't just expect to successfully mimic what other people have done simply by playing games.
If you want, you can try to analyze the very first room of Portal, then listen to the audio commentary of the authors (and other analysis of Portal's game design on the internet) and you will find that they thought a lot about that room. I bet they could talk about it for hours straight. It's just a goddamn glass room with a wall.
Obviously playing games helps, but it's very, very far from being enough.