DulyNoted

That's fair, but also, the fact that it has procedural generation should not be a surprise to anyone at this point, they were very open about it.

I'm just hoping there's an easy way to distinguish in game between the procedural stuff that's not worth exploring and the stuff that is. I'm hoping it can be safely ignored, but it WILL be annoying if they hide really interesting questlines on otherwise barren planets.

There's quite a wide range of reviews. I tend to trust the ones who talk about how much fun the side content and faction quests a lot more than I trust the ones that were underwhelmed by the main questline. I've been playing these games since Oblivion and the only main questline I ever finished was Fallout NV.

Not really the same type of game at all. Elite is a fun simulation but there's essentially no story.

In the same way, I'm sure the space combat will be fun in Starfield, with essentially no depth.

All of the most positive reviews I've read have been at 80+ hours. Still finding new things to do, which is a good sign.

Docking point for subjective things is weird to me as well. "I wanted a minimap!"

This reviewer also went right into NG+ after finishing the main story. I guess play how you want, but that feels deeply wrong to me.

Yeah I watched that. It was almost all dev talk, some views on the major city, and some promises. I meant like, I haven't seen ANY impressions from outside the company that made the game.

But yeah, review embargo is up so let's see

Ohhh, so that's why he was called Buzz Lightyear!

Am I crazy or has there been almost no pre-release coverage of this game?

Oblivion and Fallout 3 are two of my all-time favourite games (I've played the others as well but those 2 stuck with me the most) but I just cannot get hyped for this game. It's like a black box with people's hopes and dreams, and it feels like people are just hyping themselves up by imagining what could be inside it.

I couldn't imagine pre-ordering this game in particular. Beth has been so quiet I'm worried it may just be a total flop.

They also mention that the majority of homeless aren't that.

Yes, but the majority of visible homeless are.

I mean it'd be as realistic as the rest of the AITA posts, I'm on board

Centrism being villified in America is really weird, as that is explicitly championing extremism over moderation.

Leaping so hard onto one side that you cannot tolerate anyone's toe out of line, the party line must be upheld at all costs, is exactly the same kind of extremist shit we go after the right for. Just be better. It's easy to get caught up into the "us vs them", "black vs white", "red vs blue" thing, but it's really not that simple.

The example above is a strawman. I can do it too. One side says "kill all minorities", and the other side says "all minorities should become the new upper class of society." Neither side is actually pushing for either of those things, and we've turned real issues into disconnected make believe.

You're simplifying the problem to the point where you don't even have to think about it or consider a single argument. It's much easier if you make up some extremist shit and then say anything and everything is justified in opposition of that extreme.