So you like MGS V's missions just cause its open-world? We certainly have different mindsets then. I'm not impressed by something just cause its open-world, fun comes first and formemost to me and GTA V delivers excellent fun, while MGS V bores me. Though its not the first Kojima game to bore me, MGS Peace Walker and MGS 3 bored me just as much, expected this one to be different in that regard, but despite the change in approach Kojima hasn't made it a very exciting game.

Sorry, but I have no choice but to pretend after I post this comment, that I have NOT read your topic.
I find it CRAZY how anyone can possibly think that this game is anything but STUNNING!
A gorgeous open world game at 60fps is mindblowing. To think how beautifully it all plays out is just incredible.
Also, the game doesn't need to concentrate on story anymore. Let it finally be just an awesome game to play. We've already been there and sat through soooooo many 10+ minute cutscenes that it was time for a change. Kojima made that happen. He kept the franchise fresh after so many years and it shows in MGSV. It plays like MGS yet is completely different from the rest. That's why it's praised and rightfully so.

Frickin hell, thank the heavens the critics aren't THIS guy or else we'd be in some serious trouble. He should stay far FAR away from MGS because all his points are ridiculous to me.

Any more straw mans and you could file for status as a scarecrow manufacturer.

No, I don't enjoy MGSV simply because it's "open world." I enjoy MGSV because the open world adds an element of freedom to gameplay that elevates the general stealth/action mash up that's been Metal Gear's calling card. What I like about Solid V is that it's far more organic and open to surprises. It also puts the planning far more on the player than GTAV does, requiring the player to think through what they're doing less they get shredded by enemy gunfire.

I'll reference GTAV's first heist as an example, the Jewlery store heist. Depending on which path you take (loud or smart), you are forced into a very linear set of proceedings. If you go quiet, you have to move around the roofs and throw a gas can in the air vent, and then proceed to actually rob the store. If you go loud, you basically just kick the door down and shoot up the place to a chorus of blaring alarms. You choose either "stealthy" or "actiony" as your plan of attack, and then the game strictly forces you down one of those two paths during the mission, with a game over screen generally following if someone manages to pull an alarm along the way.

MGSV, meanwhile, is far more organic. When you see an objective, you can decide to go in with just about any approach that you want. You can shoot the place up, call in a helicopter to shoot the place up for you, pick off enemies one at a time, sneak in without making contact, etc. The decision is left entirely up to the player as opposed to being given a few select routes from which to choose and then being forced to stick with it, with the consequences of poor planning being losing a helicopter or getting a game over. This leads to MGSV's gameplay being far more exciting for me as well. If someone catches me and pulls an alarm in GTAV, it's game over and I just have to redo things. If someone catches me in MGSV, however, it's a moment of surprise and panic. I don't get a game over, I have to suddenly reorchestrate my entire plan and figure out how I'm going to deal with the new circumstances presenting. The ability for situations to change at any moment is a large part of what makes MGSV appealing to me; I find it much more fun to be in a situation where I've got to plan ahead and figure things out on the fly if my plans go wrong as opposed to having the game do most of the planning for me and simply choosing one of a few preselected paths.

Perhaps, to narrow it down, why I prefer MGSV to GTAV is the freedom MGSV offers, both inside and outside of missions. GTAV's missions are extremely linear and will give you a game over if you don't follow the instructions to the letter, while MGSV allows for much greater variety and will only fail you if you or a target you're trying to save dies. I prefer that level of freedom in a game, and yes, I do find it more "fun."

Then please read my post. I do focus on the negative points, because I'm trying to explain why this game does not deserve all the praise its getting imo.

(What I'm really trying to say is that it deserves the praise for its positive aspects, but most of reviewers fail to even mention its weaknesses)

However I also state which parts of it are excellent and why this game is still good and very recommendable.

If his points are so ridiculous, you should have no problem rebutting them easily. This sort of dismissiveness accomplishes nothing.

A number of his points are valid, too. The story is a huged missed opportunity, one that didn't need 10 minute cutscenes to tell. A story dealing with a hero's descent into villainy with an unending quest for revenge would have been really compelling. And he's certainly not wrong about the recycled missions either, though most of them are optional, the game does a very poor job of explaining that they are optional.

They are? The main ones? Which ones?

Or better, how can you tell by yourself?

You say that like it isnt the same with other games. For example Dragon age inquisition GOTY of repetitiveness and boredom. So, yes, newsflash... commercial reviews are parcial. How is this still surprising?

The publications don't want to get in trouble, its a huge investment to the publishers so theres alot of pressure on the reviewers. In this case though, i think they just wanted to pay homage to Kojima. But yes, review scores are a sham.

this is his swan song for the metal gear series. That is why all these people are most likely adding an extra 5-8 points on their review score. Currently playing it on my PS3 )free copy), it's fun so far for me.

All valid points, but taht's where we differ. In a sense I do prefer GTA V's "linear" missions over what I played of MGS V's "open" missions. On paper it sounds exciting to be able to pick up multiple ways of encountering an enemy, but in practice it becomes a little hectic, unplanned, undirected and hence isn't fun. MGS V may be deeper in this regard, but wasn't fun for me, which is a priority for me when playing a game. That doesn't mean I don't like depth in games, but I like to have fun at the same time. MGS V can be too deep and technical to be fun, and that holds true for the other two MGS games I've played as well. But to a greater extent in MGS V.

GTA V's open-world is far better than MGS V's open-world, and its actually a living, breathing world with a lot of variety and room to create your own fun. MGS V's world is beautiful to look at, but that's where the immersion ends. And GTA V has got a lot more story and humour. MGS V is good but its mission design is not fun and open-world is empty.

I can't really comment on Zelda since I've never played them, but from what I've seen, it doesn't have the amount of depth or freedom MGSV offers. The game often tells you "it's up to you." In the previous games, you were restricted on what to do and how to do it.

It isn't flawless, but MGSV is ground-breaking for the series and stealth games in general.