Audience maximization is almost literally regression towards the mean to maximize profit. It implies cutting corners ; but some of these corners are actually making your game stronger, they're giving it its personality.
Think of "Dwarf Fortress", "brogue", or even "Minecraft". What kind of feedback do you expect to get from most players? Better graphics? Real-time play? Would it make the game stronger?
For Dwarf Fortress, I believe most players would want a more understandable user interface and a tutorial, and I honestly believe that would make it a better game.
One general result from designing games is that players tend to be good at knowing what needs improving, but very bad at knowing how to improve it, so it's a good idea to see where they get stuck or frustrated, but then ignore their advice on how to fix it.
The idea you're exploring might be more akin to the Mario Cram School[1] which involved getting staff across all of Nintendo, not just designers, creatively exploring Mario development. But straight up assuming that Nintendo's approach towards design makes it a thumbs-up dismisses notions people have that newer Nintendo games overuse tutorials to the point of infantilising the audience.
[0] https://www.destructoid.com/nintendo-seal-of-quality-becomes... [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBXZ5lqdZQ8
Although their games are mass mass market, they still feel opinionated. Their designs have a certain Nintendo-ness to them that's persisted for decades in almost all their games. Even when they partner up with a third party their design shows through.
If they had extensive playtesting early on I would think their uniqueness would be eroded. It obviously hasn't. Most recently Nintendo set the bar for what an open world game should be like with their take. Not just in quality but by applying their method they elevated the genre.
Authors also have editors and 'test readers' for their novels. That doesn't erode uniqueness. Why should this happen for games?
I also don't agree that "Indie" = "better" or "unique". AAA companies, especially Sony and Nintendo have released amazingly creative games. Just a few from Nintendo include Pikman, Animal Crossing, 1-2 Switch (cow milking), Cubivore, and there are several others. Meanwhile 99% of "indie" games are skinned versions of old games who's best examples are often Nintendo's. How many "Metroid"vanias are there? How many Smash Bros clones?
As one more final point, the games made at big companies are made by actual people who poor their creativity into the games they make. Indies don't have a monopoly on creativity. Being AAA != can't be creative nor does it mean can't take risks on new ideas. There are plenty of examples of new ideas from these companies.
No spoilers, but almost every set of 523 main puzzles in The Witness has a twist that requires a full 3D environment in really interesting ways.
The +135 +6 bonus puzzles require a 3D to 2D transition, but only ironically.
Aren't almost all the puzzles 2D graph paper mazes?
But I strongly disagree that the most creative or the best game will ever be mainstream. When is the last time a AAA game came out like Baba Is You? Celeste? Hollow Knight? Those are games I play and replay because they're so enjoyable and memorable. Nintendo makes great games but I don't feel any of them are quite the same experience as the best indie games I've played.
I mean, what does that even mean? If we use the analogy of movies, where the medium as an art form is more established: Pixar movies are creative, but they can still be bland (most of them are anyway). Yes, some Nintendo games pushed games as a medium forward, but I don't remember any Nintendo or Sony game that pushed in the direction Braid or The Witness did. Very few games do actually. "Games" games are more like toys. I enjoy playing with them, but I don't step away from them and think deeply about the experience I had. And I wish more games would strive for that kind of experience.
>Meanwhile 99% of "indie" games are skinned versions of old games who's best examples are often Nintendo's. How many "Metroid"vanias are there? How many Smash Bros clones?
Compare that to what the parent comment said
>but they're not nearly as unique an experience as you'll find from some indie developers.
By a matter of definition, I would expect any creative media to not be bland. Even if every other part of it is boring the exploration of the creative ideas in it should be stimulating.
> I don't remember any Nintendo or Sony game that pushed in the direction Braid or The Witness did
I'm not sure what direction you are referring to. I don't think that either has really influenced gaming as a medium. The closest game I can think of as a comparison for Braid would be Portal and I think it also didn't really push any boundaries for games.
The Witness is still a little young, but I don't think its likely to lead the way for other games either.
On the other hand, I think the original Metroid and Legend of Zelda radically pushed forward what games can do. I think both of them would make you think deeply about the experience of playing them if you played them in their time.