Critically it's getting ripped up for things that the predecessor did as well and there's still this bizarre narrative that it's somehow the Division 2 but with Wildlands. They added mechanics that don't really come in to play that much and feel unnecessary, but it didn't suddenly become a looter shooter RPG with bullet sponge enemies so people still parroting that are just wrong.
It's pretty clear from the multiple times you've posted in threads related to it that you don't like it or don't want to like it, and that's totally fine. I think there's a bunch of annoyances with it myself, but it isn't vastly different than what came before, so suddenly treating like it's a barely functional product or something is just bizarre to some of the people that have been playing it and are finding it to be more of the same as Wildlands: slightly better in some ways and slightly more cumbersome and obnoxious in others.
The reviews have been extremely critical in ways that don't really make sense to some people playing and that's really all there is to it. It's all opinion anyway so having this kind of debate is irrelevant. You're either going to like it or you're not, there's a lots to critique it for but 1/5, 4/10, etc. seems off base and continues to prove why numerical rating systems are completely useless.
