Maybe it doesn't wholly apply for the general public, but it's certainly seems to be that way for the critics. Most major reviews reads very similarly mentioning the same criticisms, but where those opinions split is whether or not the reviewer managed to have fun in spite of those issues. That could be said of any game review, but none in recent memory have been as polarizing as this game.
As for whether or not you think the game is designed well, that's your opinion, and I can't call you wrong. I, personally, don't see anything genuinely impressive about this game from general design, to scenario design, to narrative, to mechanics. The amount of movement and combat options is pretty interesting, but that's about it. And even then something like the quick shot, which many seem to love, is a terrible mechanic IMO. Everyone will have a different experience.
It's not just up to enjoying experimentation. If the game doesn't explain mechanics well enough ON TOP OF the other issues someone might have with it, what's the incentive to start digging through the options? There are too many distractions and too little time these days to "force" a game to become enjoyable if you don't like it at a base level.
Game critics, in general, are pretty bad at delving deep into mechanics, so it really shouldn't be a surprise. I've come to realize that after all the praise Uncharted 3 got, yet barely any of the major publications mentioned a single thing of how combat has changed. Shooters, in general, don't get put under a microscope nearly enough, to the point that mechanically great games like Vanquish or Max Payne 3 get glossed over despite being head and shoulders above their contemporaries.