I feel like people who play d4 just want to draw all the time and are typically Berlin players. E4, best by test!
D4 is more of a slow-paced opening, but that doesn't make it drawish. A lot of interesting and tactical positions can arise from it.
According to some good players like Kasparov 1.d4 (say "closed games") are "richer" e.g. more profound. 1.e4 Black defends, swaps some pieces in the open position and he is fine. With 1.d4 (1.c4/1.Nf3) he needs good ideas to survive, just swapping pieces won't help. My opinion as well, I'll play both moves on a regular basis. Admittedly, 1.d4 more often recently.
Play both if you want to be good.
D4 is for people who hate spectacular chessund and want to shuffle pieces for 100 years.
I hate to use ethos argumentation, but Fischer said e4 was best. It leads to more open games, and is generally sharper, hence is the more aggressive.
Both can be sharp, both can be slow; both can be aggressive, both solid.
In my opinion the difference in character between them is overestimated; it is easier to stir up tactical slugfests with e4, but it can be done successfully with d4, and there are plenty of positional lines in e4 openings. The character of the player matters more than the first move.
Question: "1.d4 or 1.e4?"
> I feel like people who play d4 just want to draw all the time and are typically Berlin players.
I feel like people who only play e4 don't really understand how much beauty of chess are they missing.