While I agree it's often a team-sport, being able to create amazing things yourself (i.e. Git, Redis, RollerCoaster Tycoon, Rust and other single-person projects) that others struggle to replicate or contribute too shouldn't mean you're a bad software engineer.
I actually don't know for certain that writing Rollercoaster Tycoon in assembly was the not only possible way of doing it. But in popular consciousness it is usually discussed as a wildly difficult thing rather than the most efficient solution to a problem. That's anti-engineering.
There isn't really a good set of words to break down categorization. But I do think that the skills involved in the large majority of software engineering roles are pretty much entirely separate from the skills involved in writing some exceptionally difficult program.
There aren't a lot of companies that are doing that in software. For example, there are a lot of SaaS businesses doing things that might have interesting engineering problems to solve but those engineering problems usually don't result in creating new products for software engineers to use. Rails is a good example of a byproduct from a SaaS business, React is a byproduct of whatever Meta does.
They are vastly different disciplines. Especially engineering on a large team.
Not many devs create the core of what is arguably the best programming language available today as a personal project. However, it's true that what it has become today is now the work of many.
Creating amazing things yourself that others struggle to replicate or contribute to is more in the realm of craftsmanship, in my opinion, and not engineering.
I can appreciate both good engineering and good craftsmanship. And I also often find myself doing (and enjoying) what I would consider crafting and not engineering - the lines can be blurry and as programmers we often end up doing both (sometimes at the same time!). Nothing wrong with it. But it is something that is distinct from engineering, in my opinion.
This is absolutely the case and my main struggle as a SE. In my opinion this is all arbitrary and companies could easily structure themselves to allow engineers to focus on what they do best, instead of adding a ton of overhead with tasks that someone else that is not trained as an engineer could do. The response seems to always be the same and boils down to "you need to add business value and that includes all these other easy but time consuming tasks".
I seriously doubt that is the only way, but I haven't build a large software company so ultimately it is hard for me to say, however I suspect that if an engineer's time is maximized to practice engineering, it would bring a lot more business value in the long run.
Most engineering is this way. Somebody needs to build a thing that isn't too different from other things on a budget and a timeline. Your typical civil engineer isn't designing a new burj khalifa. Most software engineering is about organizing a group of people to build a thing for a customer that isn't too different from other things, on time and on budget. There just simply aren't as many jobs working on wild stuff nobody has ever done before.
RollerCoaster Tycoon is, in my opinion, a great example of something that isn't really engineering. One person did it and the decision to write it all in assembly is almost anti-engineering. It is an impressive feat, but not really comparable.