Which is to say the indie game and cozy game niches respectively have a lot of scope, because their possible gameplay is "everything that isn't combat", and I welcome the variety and creativity.
My first answer is that one of the most amazing mechanics ever designed is health points, I believe invented by Dungeons and Dragons. Almost every non-health win condition feels more arbitrary than health. Whether it's shooting balls in hoops, crossing a finish line first, or collecting victory points they are all less intuitive and feel more contrived than "you have this many points, at 0 you die."
The second is that many game designs are essentially about conflict, whether with other players or game agents. The ultimate conflict is life or death violence, aka combat. So it's a quicky and easy way to raise the metaphorical stakes. If you take an olympic fencing game and instead make them use real swords and no armor then it's a lot more dramatic with no change in the game mechanics.
Making non-violent games is not undesirable, it's just harder to do well when combat fits so naturally. You end with non-violent games being worse on average, non-dramatic low stakes metaphors and contrived win conditions.
Competition is such a default in game design that a game not based on it often isn’t recognized as a game at all. There are cooperative games, but aside from Minecraft, none of them are particularly popular. It’s arguable that this a reflection of the human condition; living things are always fighting for resources, so games attempt to emulate this competition.
It’s odd that this ended up being the paradigm, though; digital worlds can provide us with a space to explore what we would conventionally consider to be impossible - infinite worlds which obviate the need for competition in the first place. There’s maybe a commentary on human nature to be made that even in a game like Minecraft, so many players’ first inclination is to start fighting each other.
One of the things I like about Minecraft is that it isn’t structurally adversarial. Most conventional multiplayer games are fundamentally about outperforming another player.
Even when a game is not explicitly violent, I think there is a compelling argument to be made that it continues to shape the player’s perspective as to how the world is and ought to be. Mario Kart is no different from Call of Duty in this regard; both share triumph over others as their win state, whereas Minecraft offers at least the possibility of a (practically) infinite world that is purely cooperative.
I often like to think that the afterlife is something like a big Minecraft server, where our wills have been perfected such that the idea of competitive strife never even crosses one’s mind, and all there is to do is expand into a horizon of possibility. Naturally this makes me very unpopular at LAN parties.
In competitive game it's possible the less skilled player may never win (not true for party games), but at least only they are personally invested in their win so no one can righteously take over.
I tend to just not play with people like that. I find those same people are typically insufferable with competitive games too.
The systems of that game were very impressive in terms of using game systems to support themselves.
As a conflict has multiple parties trying to reach their own goal which doesn't completely overlap with the others.
i think this would rule out nearly all games (including most non violent ones)
What if instead the majority of the gameplay was unique game mechanics that actually achieve the goal. Instead of "oh no it's full of monsters who are in the way of the buttons", why not having to scavenge the parts, solve some mechanical and electrical puzzles. Maybe find a person and get the right dialogue options to get information you need out of them, that actually applies to the puzzles, etc... this is all in existing games already of course, but hopefully that illustrates what I am getting at.
Cyberpunk 2077 had this issue in spades, as all the storylines were so interesting, and could have had such interesting game mechanics tied to them. But it was mostly combat.
I am not saying that makes it a bad game, just that there is so much room for other mechanics.
The Chasm of Possibilities sounds like a comedic juxtaposition, like something from The Phantom Tollbooth or Hitchhiker's Guide.
That is funny though, English is my first language and I am reasonably well read, but for whatever reason, common turns of phrase are entirely missing, so I fill in the blanks, and don't always hit the mark.