It's been a long time since I saw a patent that wasn't a description of the most obvious way to do something. Where I work the company is trying to patent everything (mostly, I would hope for defensive reasons). I have patents in my name.
And they're all written as broadly as the USPTO will accept, which is pretty damn broadly. The language is subtle, but in most cases the implications of the language are not subtle.
Do you read the claims and the arguments made to differentiate over any prior art the examiner finds? Trying to guess at the "implications" of the language is a futile endeavor unless you have a ton of context, because a ton of things need to be considered to understand the scope of a claim. In patent lawsuits, in fact, a Markman hearing is one of the most critical phases, as this is where it gets determined what terms in the claims actually mean, and hence what claims actually cover.
And they're all written as broadly as the USPTO will accept, which is pretty damn broadly. The language is subtle, but in most cases the implications of the language are not subtle.