More and more games seem to suck on thier own, but can be great with mods. You have entire platforms like roblox where all the games are more or less mods. How long until the platform itself is community created and managed and the viability of games created by companies dissappears?
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.
Well, if you lower the barrier to entry. More people are likely to use the stock offerings. But that isn’t really a plus. Ideally the games would be visually different. But if you have a simple mechanic like inventory, it could and should generally be similar to others, unless that is what is supposed to be different about your game. W, a, s, d at least is pretty standard now. But it wasn’t always. I have noticed games solving the same problems as many other games, but doing it much worse. And clearly not by intention to be different, just because that wasn’t thier focus. So for those cases, it would improve those games.
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.
What I was saying is that if they aren’t intentionally breaking the standard, then there is no reason not to use the standard. But what I see is games that are focused on where they are trying to break the standard and be different (which they should) and then leaving basic functionality half assed. It’s that half assed stuff that reduces the quality of the game, and also even though it was half assed, it still took dev time, and may even be a thorn in their side that they just never get to. Having off the shelf plugins for that kind of thing means they can focus on what they are innovating, and still produce a game that has decent polish in the other areas like inventory and such.
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 don’t work in games, but I do work in software. I do understand that there are already libraries and plugins. I am just talking about increasing the level of abstraction. An example of something I see in crafting games may help. So you go to craft something, and you are missing a component, but you are able to craft that too. In some games you can click on the missing component to go to the interface were you would craft it. But in most you have to go back to the crafting search and type in the name in a search bar then click on it in a list to do the same. This is a simple QOL thing. Further, after you crafted the component, a back arrow to take you back to what you were trying to craft originally would be nice. But you won’t see that in 90% of crafting games. But you will find mods for this kind of thing. My assertion is that devs don’t implement these sorts of things because they would rather spend thier time on the things that make their game different. So if this sort of thing was a plugin or what not, they wouldn’t need to spend time on it, and the overall quality would go up. Plus people who want to make games today, but are overwhelmed by how much they would have to do that isn’t related to the idea they have, my feel less overwhelmed, and we would get more games with more innovative ideas.
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.