The thing that just outright confuses me about all the backlash against RE6 is that it is like everybody suddenly forgot every other Resident Evil game except 4 right as soon as this one came out.
The hindsight opinion of everyone in the enthusiast video games press seems to be that the first four games (1,2,3,CV) are all horrible monstrosities that control like crap and have ridiculous overwrought story lines. An opinion I think is undeserved aside from the story which is truthfully really absurd, but the tank controls where perfectly fine. Then suddenly RE6 comes out the general reaction seems to be "what this game is terrible and ruined the franchise, it has terrible controls and the plot is just stupid", "RE4 was a flawless gem with great controls and such a radical twist on the story throwing out 9/10's of the RE universe that all is forgiven".
These schools of thought just outright piss me off because people are slamming what is a perfectly good B- or C+ video game with scores in the 30's and 40's outraged at how dare Capcom make a Resident Evil that controls like crap and has no substance to the plot. But these same people would likely say the exact same thing about the old RE games if they were brought up on a podcast or other venue for discussion.
It's not defense force or justification, or some dumb ass conspiracy theory like some people are calling. It's out and out hypocrisy, you can't levy the same complaints against a games predecessors then slam that game and praise what you had been shitting on before.
The game has flaws, its still enjoyable and not offensively bad as some critics have suggested. N'Gai Croal is absolutely right that RE6 is a watershed moment between the relationship between Triple A games and reviewers.