i kinda excepted it, it looks another third person shooter

you havent bought it or played it in the first place. MGS5 is the best example how to make a game. Quantum break looks like a pure shooter without any substance while MGS5 is open world with countless of game elements and a MP.

I am still playing it managing my FOBs and research every day

Or maybe last gen was full of hype instead of substance that cause a lot of games scoring the 90s undeservingly.

It's imo that this gen, reviewers are much more critical because they knew they butchered the review metric system by scoring too much 9s and made the perception of 80 70 60 grades being average, mediocre and horrible respectively which was  imo caused so much due distress to developers to hit the 9s in the metacritic system. I know a lot of gamers skipping games below 8 or 7 scores. So I see that as a way to standardize the review system into a more realistical one.

It's not about quality. It's more about teaching the readers that they should read game reviews beyond the grade they gave. That's what I think anyway.

And FFXV doesn't need 10M to be considered a success. It has been clarified if that's what you're hinting. Most AAA games doesn't need that much.

Oh my!

Holy mother of replys Wright.

When i get home i will check it out.

I apretiate your take on the matter tho.

Dunno what makes you think I havent played but I did, and I dont think is a terrible game, I liked the controls, the graphics, the smooth framerate, the amount of ways in wich you can solve the same mission, I can understand why you keep playing, but I think it was massively overrated on meta, it feels too repetitive, a lot of missions are really weak, the story is too stupid, the writting is embarrasing and I felt bored a lot of times. So much for a game with a 95 on XBO.

That's what happens when I'm bored.

No hurries, though. Drive safe!

So do you think reviewers have been harsher this gen?

When game fails to live up to the hypes and expectations the average gamer will blame the reviewers rather than the game. Some media outlets have gone away with giving score reviews. 

Or that games just haven’t been that good?

Games are better than ever, except they are always being comparing to the ever-growing list of game history. New games are expected to innovate and offer new experience. Games don't get away with mediocracy anymore. 

Whats your opinion on the matter?

Take the score on the reviews with a grain of salt a low score doesn't always mean it's a game you will not love. Take Crimes & Punishment: Sherlocks Holmes, it got a 72 metacritic but that game was just the niche game that a fan of adventure and point and click like myself really enjoys. I would of gave it a much higher score, But the game is for fans of the genre and a reviewer that doesn't care much for the genre would give it a much lower score. 

The story is great you didnt understand what its all about watch some lore videos on youtube

Even to the untrained eye, this game looks boring. In the end, all of the hype and lens flare in the world isn't going to force people to pretend to like siting infront of a TV playing a game and then having a sitcom run through it like a cheap whore. They should have just made a game and then put the live action on an interactive Blu Ray and let you choose what happens next.

Youtube videos often remark how terrible and disappointing the story in MGSV is.