Oh, I stand corrected

People are just now acknowledging it. Execs tend to have a disdain for the minutiae. They’re like kids that only want to do the exciting bits. As a result things get fucked because they don’t really understand what they’re doing. As Muskrat would say “move fast and break things.” It’s a terrible mindset.

And they’ll say “aww Topsy” at my autopsy!

Personally my biggest gripe is with the formatting, specifically spoilers tags are a terrible choice when the whole thing could be a single sentence with a link. Spoiler tags aren’t uniformly implemented and when pointed out the stance is it’s the clients fault for not doing spoilers the way the dev wants rather than the devs fault for not using a more standardized approach which just bugs me. If the goal was concise conveyance of information, they missed the mark.

You aren’t but I think OP might be

I’m pretty sure no part of this is a good thing

No no, keep going

I enjoyed what little of it there was too, but there just wasn’t anything substantial to it. What was there was mechanics FO4 did better 8 years earlier supporting a non existent story and a largely empty world. I was willing to overlook that snapping/building ships/outposts was FO4’s settlement building but somehow worse. I was prepared to accept that individual clothing pieces were no longer a thing in favor of monolithic outfits even though it felt like a step backwards. I was even willing to accept that I couldn’t walk from one side of a settlement to the other without 3 load screens but by the time it got to the “ending” and my own gorram character just chuckles at me for thinking anything whatsoever would be explained it was obvious that I’d been taken for a ride. I liked what was there, or maybe I just really wanted to, but I was much more disappointed by what wasn’t there.

Bethesda’s Starfield was generally a well-regarded RPG,

According to whom? It was a hollow shell of a game with a main storyline that can be summed up as “there is none.”

What argument? What the actual fuck are you talking about?

he’s a libertarian utilitarian dictator not an authoritarian dictator

You said that he’s not an authoritarian dictator. That assertion is laughable, and so patently untrue as to approach ironic satire. What else is there to comprehend? I really don’t get where you’re coming from here.

I was literally just pointing out that he’s a dictator, but you like him. The satire part was specifically in reference to the assertion that he wasn’t/isn’t an autocrat which I find laughable. I wasn’t and didn’t comment on whether he was the best choice for the Mojave, or who was and a such I genuinely don’t see the relevance of rehashing the sociopolitical context of the game.

Yeah and? What does that have to do with the absurdity of “yes he’s a dictator, but I like him so it’s ok?”

lololol this is satire right?