This feels like a cop-out, though. Not only is it pretty unfair to refute (who buys a brand-new IP totally blind?), it's a way to sidestep complaints without addressing them. It doesn't even really apply that often. For example, there are plenty of people who hate Demon's Souls for exactly those divisive points.
I can say for sure that when I picked up the game for the first time, with the exception of the lock-on, which took some getting used to, I figured out the controls themselves pretty quickly. I never felt out of control when playing the game. It was just a matter of learning how to apply the basics to the environment and enemies around me: how to manage my stamina, how to block, when to advance and when to retreat. It was the same kind of careful balance in difficulty that drew me to Ninja Gaiden Black much earlier, a critically well-received game that also has checkpoints and punishing difficulty.
I can't speak to how much of an injustice Outbreak 2's reception was, since I've never played it. I can guess that the difference between its online and Demon's Souls is that the latter has very simple shared goals that any player can accomplish alone, and it's optional. I believe Outbreak allows for a lot of mechanical interaction between players, and they have different abilities and such, and they need to cooperate to advance. Am I wrong?
Either way, while outside reception can definitely shape attitudes towards a game to some degree, it's not going to make someone hate a game they'd like, or like a game they'd hate.
My understanding from reviews isn't that RE6 is some misunderstood game that reviewers would enjoy if they could only wrap their heads around the controls. It's that the quality of the scenarios varies widely, veering rapidly between excellent moments and moments of total frustration or tedium. Scripted chase sequences, button-mashing QTEs, and half-baked vehicle sections aren't hated because people don't know how to control them; they're hated because they aren't fun.
