OP goes to forums and see people spam hate on it and think majority dislikes it, everywhere i see people loving it.

1) thats a really difficult topic to disscuss for me since even though i do agree that i had WAY more of a blast with the previous games (that are all linear games), i believe that done right we could get the best of both worlds.

2) i feel bad because i forgot the previous games had health bars, and yeah its completely true, regenerating health does incetivize hit and run strategies and i did find myself doing that "strategy" more than a couple of times in the game, it really changes the pacing of the gameplay and it makes it more of an action game were you are not scared of taking an entire base on by yourself.

3) wanna know what my favorite part in MGSV was? the intro in the hospital, structured linear and (as you say) coreagraphed levels are the best ones, and there is actually more of that in the game, there are some parts in the map that are only accesible through some missions (and after that they do open up so you can acces them at any time), and they are linear and structured (but sadly not as coreagraphed as the hospital level).

im bringging this up because its really close to what you are proposing, of having an open world made out of structured levels, this game had some structured levels in its open world and those were the best missions by far (at least for me), however there were very few of them and they were really FAR apart from each other, if all the main missions were done in areas like this, and the side ops were just for the rest of the open world, then it would have been much better, this could have been the way that we could have gotten the best of both worlds (a big open world with structured levels like the old games in it), also of course youre suggestion of having an open world version made out of structured levels (a la Dark Souls/Demons Souls) works as well.

All in all yeah i agree with everything.

How is anyone trying to fool him by stating their thoughts on the game? He asked for other people's opinion. If someone else doesn't like it, that's not fooling the OP in any way. So you're welcome to explain your "don't let them fool you" comment.

Regarding your comment about vast minority, in this topic, with the people you claim are someohow trying to fool the OP (again, I'd like to hear what you mean by that), the majority of commentors so far have stated that they dislike the game. Up until my post, 13 people explicitly stated that they dislike it more than they like it, and 11 people said that they like it more than they dislike it.
(People with ambigous answers like "I like X aspect, but dislike X aspect" and then didn't state whether they liked or disliked the game overall, were left out of the calculation.)
How you've percieved it on other places on the internet or the real world is just anacdotal. Because personally I've heard plenty of negative impressions of the game. Enough so that I feel this may be the most disliked mainline MGS game.
Since you brought up Metacritic, looking at user reviews, since you brought it up, it has a higher disapproval rate than any other mainline MGS game.

Not that I think Metacritic is a good indication of this. 
One user wrote this for example:

"Why Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain is a disappointment:
1. Story is sparse.
2. The world is empty and there's not much to do aside from infiltrate bases.
3. Lethal weapons are useless and non-lethal weapons are only developed in late game.
As a Metal Gear Solid fan, I'm disappointed."

And then gave it an 8, which is a positive review. Many people don't know how to use the entire scoring spectrum, and instead think that anything below 7 means terrible, when mediocre is actualy supposed to be around 5. This does not only apply to user reviewers, but some professional reviewers as well, unfortunitely.

But disregarding that, just going off of the responses that have come across my eyes and ears, it feels like the most disliked MGS game to me. Although most people still seem to like it.

Ah, I see what you were refering to now. I thought you were talking about the replies in this topic, but you were refering to what he wrote in his OP.
It makes sense then. I confused myself there. My bad.

But what percantage would you consider a vast minority? A thousand out of a million is 0.1%. I know that was an exaggeration, but it's certainly not looking anywhere near that low.
In this topic it's around 50/50. (54.17% to be exact.) And on Metacritic (again, I don't think it's a good indication, it's just the only other physical number I have right now) 25% gave less than positive scores. Which is every 4th player.
If we say for the sake of argument that every 4th player dislikes MGSV, would you call that a vast minority, or not a large enough number to be acknowledged as significant?
No one knows the actual number looking at the whole world. But there are certainly way more mixed opinions for this game than a game like MGS3.
Players can off course be upset at a game for questionable reasons. But this is true for every other game as well.

In the end, what someone else thinks about a game doesn't guarantee what you'll think about it. But if you see that more people than you'd expect have negative feelings about a game, I would say it warrants investigating a bit more thoroughly than usual before you buy it. If it still sounds and looks like something you'd like to play, go for it. The OP bought it, and ended up loving it.
Personally, I played it before I started hearing people's opinions on it. But even if I had looked into it first and had found myself to be discouraged, I would have still played it, because I would have wanted to finish the series anyway. I've come this far, might as well see it through to the end.