I always assumed that was a joke, because they're just kind of bland generic rock and roll that it seems like it would be comical to pretend to have any really strong negative reaction to it. Then I met a few real people who actually despise them, and realized it's not a joke.

I posted a shorter version of this elsewhere in here but I've thought more and want to expand.

Disclaimer: I really like both no man's sky and starfield. Gonna be down on both of them but I've got hundreds of hours in NMS and I expect to have hundreds more in SF, they are both good games, I have no regrets about buying either of them.

That said, I've realized that starfield is actually making me low-key kind of angry at NMS, for all the potential it wasted. It's showing just how little extra depth NMS could have used (could still use) to be great. There are really only a couple fairly minor ways that starfield is better, and yet for me and I think a lot of people they spell the difference between "fun sandbox" and "awesome game". Starfield is so shallow on all of these that despite being the first game to really deliver on the promise of an open world space RPG sandbox, it's like a wish-dot-com version of what nms could be.

First, combat. Nms has all right space combat, nothing great but acceptable, but there's no excusing its ground combat. There's effectively one enemy, they're not really designed to be fought most of the time, and they're almost never involved in battles of any meaning. The combat overhaul added some mechanics but didn't solve the problem... in a way it's worse now because fighting seems like it could be interesting. How come when I find a trading post it's never a ruin overrun by pirates, with scattered notes from the lost inhabitants, written in their native language so that if I can speak it I can read their sad story? Why don't I ever find a detail of gek security bots defending the inner chambers of a crashed frigate? Why can't I have a shootout with the crew of a frigate on board its procedurally generated interior?

That leads into the issue that there's no story at all. People complain about the main quest of SF, but nms has one of the flimsiest, poorest written central plots of any game I've ever seen. That would be okay, but there are also no side quests. You can't stumble upon an abandoned mine, or have a spacer randomly ask you to help break a blockade of their home system. There are a tiny number of very shallow fetch quests, but nothing with even a hint of effort in the writing.

I get a bit annoyed at starfield for systems not interacting. Like, i have a house, but I can't build outpost buildings around it, eg. However, NMS takes that to extremes with how outpost building, village building, and frigate building all seem like they're actively hostile to each other, as if coming from different games. IIRC even some of the outpost components won't properly snap together if they're from different 'styles' of outpost, although I may be misremembering.

Add to that that there's also not a lot of gear collecting mechanics, minimal ways to display loot, minimal character customisation, and so on, and it's just... sigh. Everything nms does feels like it falls just short of being amazing, but they get bored right before completing the last step to bring it all home and then they go work on another system that they'll get 3/4 through and then abandon. I wish it had mods.

Meanwhile, starfield doesn't do any individually thing particularly well either, but unlike NMS, it feels like I can do stuff with what I make. I can build a ship... and then take it smuggling! Or fight pirates! I can have NPCs on board and they'll chat with each other while I'm flying around, and help run the ship! They're not all well written, but they're actually written, and do more than just stand around saying one line back at me. It's frustrating, because honestly, taken on its own, starfield isn't particularly remarkable (see how bland space travel is eg) but there's nothing out there that's actually gone the very obvious extra mile of "okay we have beautiful worlds to explore, what if now we put some things to do on them"

My issue with it in Starfield (and any game in its genre) is that the game seems to be confused about how it feels about encumbrance. Am I supposed to be looting everything I see? If not, then why is it the major income source, why are so many random objects worth selling and taking? If so, why do merchants have such low credit stores? Am I supposed to be collecting cool stuff to display? If not, then why all the display objects? If so, why have my companions constantly nag me about bringing junk? Why make ship storage so low? Or, am I supposed to be carefully considering what I want to bring as loot? If so, why is there so much of it and why isn't there some way to quickly see what's worth taking? Am I supposed to spend an hour after each combat carefully weighing what to take home?

It's entirely unclear what they want. If they want looting to be less of a game loop, junk items should have no sell value and missions should be more of a reward, and item value/kg should be easy to assess. We should be quickly able to discard valueless items from inventory. Otoh if they want looting to be a bigger part of the game, I should be able to readily carry and sell my loot and doing so shouldn't make me so rich it breaks the economy.

It's one of my main complaints, not so much about starfield, but pretty much anything in this genre. It feels like they can't tell if they want me to loot everything or not, the design is fundamentally at odds with itself.

You're misunderstanding. At this point "Bethesda game" is its own subgenre, and many complaints about this game are complaints about the subgenre itself. If you don't like being the Big Special Hero, you won't like this game. If you want the game to have rich, detailed combat that stays challenging throughout, it probably won't be this one either

If you want a huge world with lots of curious little things to explore and more side quests than you can do in a lifetime, built on a backbone of a kind of flimsy story (imo not a terrible one this time) that you are mostly gonna skip out on to go do dungeon hops and loot accumulation, then you're probably golden with this. And by now, most of us should know what we're paying for, I think. As long as you expect and want what they consistently make, this game delivers very well

On top of that, the combat and general mechanics are just far better than the usual Bethesda offerings this time around. It's fun to fight in zero g. It's an absolute blast to disable an enemy ship and then board it. The side quests are legit quite fun and exciting, with NPCs I've found I really enjoy and want to see again.

As long as you expect a game that is like Bethesda makes, it's a very nice and fun one that delivers more than I had expected from them by a long shot. If you expected a deep, hardcore indie gem, you're going to be disappointed and also you're maybe kind of a silly person. It's a mass produced game for a large audience, that's the stick by which to measure it.

The far right is seriously outnumbered. Encouraging people to apathy helps them, because most people who get involved are their enemies.

Jeez I want to go to your movie theatre that seems to have fresh pretzels

It's amazing how "righteous fury" people seem to get over folks protesting sporting events because the fucking planet is on fire.

"Oh but couldn't they be more calm and quiet about it, I want to watch the race!"

No... Actually, the person you're talking to is correct. We switch back and forth in metric all the time, fluidly, because it's easy. The things you're describing and many more are normal parts of the metric system, and your flat assumption that it never happens because you assume it's too hard and unnatural is kind of a solid demonstration of how metric is superior.

"obvious" means, I think, that it says something like "last saved 5 seconds ago"

It's weird particularly to see that praise for Skyrim when (imo obviously) morrowind in the same series had a substantially more interesting story and world, a decade prior

I'm a doctor and intentionally set my own hours to four day work weeks whenever I can, because I run my own practice and can do that. Let's not pretend it's a badge of honour to grind ourselves into a twitching mess.

True, but not new. It's been this since before "fight terror" in fact.