Have you ever heard of subjectiveness?
Yes, it's subjective. Just like the gameplay flow argument because anyone who liked the old mechanics isn't going to notice a significant difference in gameplay. It's a minor change that is simply blown out of proportion if you don't like defeat mechanics. Just like how the effect on fun is blown out of proportion for me because I like defeat mechanics. It's bias either way.
Also, not a very accurate analogy. A more accurate analogy would be if the newest COD game spontaneously turned into a Geoguessr. Any reasonable person will look at a game that doesn't cater to their interests, maybe imagine what it would be like if it did, and then move on. I, too, point and laugh when the obligatory pregnancy beggars are denied content. However, a game that looks promising at first and then pulls a 180 amplifies the sense of missed potential. A game that goes off course also makes it seem more plausible that the change could be reverted, hence why I think it's worthwhile to argue.
Part of the reason is also because it doesn't seem difficult to implement the old mechanics as a toggleable option. I mean, just make at least one attack of every future enemy activate the stun state and then have the enemy walk towards stunned Kincaid. No extra animations, no extra content, just some code. Hell, the stationary enemies could even inexplicably teleport to stunned Kincaid, and I'd be happy. So I hold onto some sense of hope because it seems like an easy change.
In addition, it's bold of you to assume that I haven't already played every other game with bearable art and some essence of gameplay, and am watching other games in development. This is the only thread I write essays in because it's the only game that is actively detracting from my interests.