I made you a question about what made MGSV so deserveful about its score, followed by certain questions that apply to the case per se. You're adamant on quoting Metacritic, but I'm asking you personally. Unless, again, your "imo" is just "whatever the critics say".

What to say; it happened the same with The Order 1886; people was expecting a lot, and the game did not get very good reviews; sure some reviewers were too much salty, but honestly the Game didn't deliver what I was expecting.    The same apply with this Game, many media consider it disappointing.

Unfinished Story: I dont think it was unfinished, at the end of the day the game was not the conclusion of the story. We all know how it ended as it was properly explained in MGS 4.

Repetitive Missions: They were as repetitive as any other open world game. But the gameplay was so great, that the missions could be aproached differntly every time, and that makes it great. The gameplay was praised across the board.

Plot Holes: like i said, everything is up there. There is an encyclopedia of MGS that you can downaload any time for the Ps3. Everything is there.

Multiplayer: It was a known fact that the multiplayer was going to be relased after the games launch, so why it would affect the reviews? It didnt affect MGS 4.

I dont know what you mean about the tortoise,

Again, this is all in my opinion, which coincides with the critics that reviewed the game.

Some new reviews added to Metacritic

Cheat Code Central - 3.8/5

Digital Chumps - 8/10

ZTGD - 8.5

Well, half of those +90 games are from the last gen, two of them are not even a game but a chapter and a dlc expansion,  and some other have a bigger scores because the low number of reviews (Shovel knight is 90 on Ps4 yet not on any other platform) There is actually only 3 +90 games from this gen, and only one is exclusive.

Something similar happens with the other list, is plenty of dlc, indies with low numbers of reviews, chapters of games, last gent remasters, etc

Last gen any slightly impressive game had a 90 or close.

So do you think reviewers have been harsher this gen?

Or that games just havent been that good?

Whats your opinion on the matter?

Its a mix. I think last gen critics were too impressed by HD gaming and the hardware possibilities of the new generation and they gave really high scores to anything that looked impressive in some way, now it seems they are not that impressed already, the difference between both gens is not that big.

 But I also think triple A gaming is getting worse and worse everyday: games broken at launch, incomplete games with expensive dlc, too much care about the graphics and cinematics over the gameplay, overambitious games with unreasonable budgets that need to sell 10 milions and trying to appeal to absolutely everyone finally end up without any kind of soul, etc 

I think its a bit of both. But great games like Bloodborne or Bayonetta 2 still get great scores anyway, a 78 nowadays has more value than some years ago, but certainly is not the usual score of a great game. In this case probably because it isnt.

How come the story wasn't unfinished? Everything leading up to the game tried to explain how Big Boss became a demon, yet the end result is nothing like that, at all. He built a body double, a particulary good one that is, who for some reason was a good guy but he decided to create Outer Heaven nonetheless. At the same time, Huey was left on a boat, we never knew what happened to Amanda, Liquid went on a rampage with the strongest Metal Gear to date (something that will never be brought up ever again, considering he appears on MGS1 with a rather bland Metal Gear), one strain of the most powerful virus was left to destiny (and never brought up again, save for the creation of FoxDie); worse yet, everything is a bit retcon that goes nowhere. And there's no ending. There's a plot twist, but there's no ending.

It's even worse that you point out MGS4 ending explaining everything. It doesn't. MGS4 never acknowledged anything between MGS3 and MG1. MGSV is nothing but the result of adding for the sake of adding. But that which was added had no conclussion. No ending.

The gameplay is great, but the missions were not. They were a massive step-down from Peace Walker, and the excuse of "being aproachable differently every time" is not true (nod to those kill/fulton the parasited common soldiers sidequests, which there are 15 of those agonizing stupid missions and there's just only one way to do them). And every mission can be described as (capture this/go here) scheme. There's no variety, no nothing.

The fact that you point to the MGS4 encyclopedia is even worse. It doesn't help your case at all, it actually highlights how dumb, poor and terrible the plot holes in MGSV are. Either they didn't have a clue what they were doing in MGSV, or the encyclopedia is lying to you. Pick your poison. Sure, "but the encyclopedia came before MGSV!"; re-read it and you'll notice how there are things that just don't make sense with MGSV in context.

Multiplayer I guess doesn't really matter, since this franchise has been predominately a singleplayer affair. As for the tortoise, it's one of the biggest middle finger from the developer for people who attempt 100% MGSV.

That fucker right there.

And I don't really mind people sharing the same sentiment as the critics, but since we're on the case, I want to examine your shared sentiments of MGSV with the critics when it comes to the story development to the game (which you don't call unfinished, you seem to like it), so I took the time to look at the Metacritic page of MGSV:

http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-4/metal-gear-solid-v-the-phantom-pain/critic-reviews

So I chose to check a bit the reviews per se, particulary those +90 (especially the ones that give it a 10/10). This is the result:

Gamesradar: dude finished the game and was definitively satisfied.

DigitallyDownloaded: dude never finished the game, and his review about the narrative actually conflicts with the narrative of the game itself (So he didn't beat the game or has no idea what he's talking about). Yet he gave it a 10.

Giantbomb: acknowledges the story is flat in comparison to other Metal Gear games. Have no way to verify he beat the game.

GamesTM: they're sad that women are misrepresented in this game, but story gets ABSOLUTELY NO MENTION whatsoever in the review. Also, they didn't beat the game by the time they wrote the review.

DigitalSpy: They got as far as the child soldiers in the story. Makes no further mention, though it says the game is disjointed. They didn't beat it either.

Levelup.com: Didn't beat the game. People in comments complain about the story not making sense.

Playstationlifestyle.net: Nope, not beaten it. Got to the first half, and he pretty much left it there.

Meristation: I'm not sure author finished the game, but everyone in the comments bashed him for not saying the game is basically incomplete.

Telegraph.co.uk: Didn't finish the game, but he was more concerned with the way Quiet dress and Kojima's justification.

Godisageek.com: Don't know if he finished the game, but he does say the story goes from totally believable to downright unbelievable at times.

Gamespot.com: I read it three times and I still don't know what to make up of it. Author claim himself that he beat the game, so I'll trust him here.

IGN.com: it actually criticized the story (it's reflected as a negative on the critic), but hell yeah, let's give a 10 regardless.

Gamingtrend.com: basing on what he says about the story (and he actually negatively criticises it), he didn't beat the game.

Arcadesushi.com: ACKNOWLEDGES THE GAME BEING INCOMPLETE, but here's a 95 regardless.

Psu.com: didn't beat the game.

Egmnow.com: Acknowledges the narrative have some unfinished things over there (he seemed to like it anyway).

Worthplaying.com: Acknowledges the second half of the game is unfinished; took some heavy toll on development.

Gameinformer.com: Disappointing ending and lackuster way to handle the storytelling. I'm not sure he beat the game though.

There's a few more that I honestly didn't want to go on reading because I'm tired, or other which are in alien languages (just kidding, french and german, which I can't speak). From this we can conclude that:

Out of 18 +90 reviewers, only two agreed that the story was good. The rest either didn't like it, or didn't beat it.

So, no, your opinion don't coincide with the critics of this game. Your opinion only coincide with Gamespot and Gamesradar.

Of course, I'm merely focusing on the story aspect. Just found this interesting.

Yeah im not buying this theory, critics arent more severe , game just are less gold in thé actual context. 

Uncharted 4 will be à proof of that, itll still be at +90 

Like next rockstar games, and next Deus Ex too will be around thé same score of thé précédent if its thé same quality

And bloodborne /dark souls 3 are already good example to deny this.

Oh and Thé Witcher 3.

Excellent/ masterpiece games still get the score they deserve.

Damn an other 4/10, people really hâte  thé games putting story over gameplay like the order 

Quantum Break smashes TV storytelling into a video game, and fails

Read more: http://www.digitaltrends.com/game-reviews/quantum-break-review/#ixzz44acMXaaA 
Follow us: @digitaltrends on Twitter | digitaltrendsftw on Facebook