RE6 is also more of a RE game than 4 and 5, if looked at logically. It's about a viral outbreak in a city or two, and there are zombies, following a long absence. Some zombies are in the DLC for RE5, sure, but they look more mummified and there's not many of them either.
RE was not intended to be just limited to cities. However looking at it from how the older games were, they follow a similar formulaic route. 4 and 5 are also action heavy, so if they keep saying that "RE6 sucks, because it's an action game" - then they should be critical of 4 and 5, but especially the one they glorify the most, which is 4. Because the last time we all looked, 4 has a lot of action. In fact, 6 allows you to move and shoot, so shouldn't those haters appreciate that control scheme?
It's fanboy, GameFAQs type hypocritical jive like this that I don't understand. There's so many people like that all over YouTube as well.
I also see that the same rule of sorts can apply to remakes with things missing. Like how 2 and 3 and now 4, all have cut content. They are all guilty of doing it, really. For I mean, Capcom does refer to all of them as being reimaginings of the originals, for a reason. But if one hates 3 for having things cut, then they shouldn't give 2 and, or, 4 a pass. Those gamers will just be presenting themselves as genuine hypocrites.