It’s your assertion that “Devs don’t implement these sort of things because they would rather spend their time on things that make their game different” that I disagree with.

That’s just not how it is. Serious thoughts goes into the mundane stuff. The UI, especially.

Ok, but you understand that even at a reasonably low level “plugins” exist for core functionality.

Libraries within code exist to make certain tasks standardised and easy to implement. Game engines abstract common requirements like level loading, control schemes, camera movement…

The point I’m repeatedly making is that these things already exist, and if a designer chooses to implement them one way or another, then I suspect they have a reason to.

No one sets out to make a half-assed game. Even the jank out there was probably a better idea at one point. But often that comes from hubris, not from a lack of “plugins”.

Again, I used to do this as a job. I was pretty mediocre, but I did get to work with some amazing talent… And I think they’d back me up on this. Creating cm games isn’t about standardisation, it is often about exploration. It is an art form as much as it is a technical process.

However, I highly recommend you give it a go yourself. GODOT is a great engine with a ton of functionality and plug ins as well as tutorials. Spend a week making a very simple game with very simple controls. Do the thing and report back. I promise I’ll play it and I’ll celebrate it with you.

I disagree, rather strongly.

The evolution of gameplay comes from the diversity of design.

This occasionally enables games, of varying quality, to break with orthodoxy and to create new paradigms.

The two stick control method we use for FPS, for example, only happened because someone broke with convention when designing Alien Resurrection for the PS1.

It was absolutely planned at the time, but soon became the standard.

My point is that you don’t know what needs to be improved until the alternatives appear.

So no, inventory should not confirm to a standard. It should be entirely driven by the aspirations of the designer and the needs of the game.

There will be times when games don’t get it right, much like in biological evolution, there are mistakes and dead ends, but the only thing you really want to avoid is a monoculture.

Think you just described a game engine like Godot or Armory.

Ultimately that’s what you are describing there with such a free-form framework. The tools to make anything.

Even at a higher level engines like RPG maker and twine exist within genres.

And that isn’t a mod, so much as a game.

But going back to mods…

And why should that end up with a common look and feel? People have been modding the look and feel of games since the 90s.

Credentials: I made mods and maps in the 90s and commercial games in the 2000s.

You know he is a cameo in all of his films, right?