Since anything I'll say will have been said in that old thread, I'm going to try to avoid retreading old ground in this post, at least. You say you didn't watch any pre-release material, so here are some videos from R*'s "Design and Technology" series for Max Payne 3. They're definitely designed to build hype about the product, but they do a decent job of laying out various aspects of the gameplay.
Creating a Cutting Edge Action-Shooter
Targeting and Weapons
Bullet Time
If the concepts shown and described in these videos excite you, then you'll find something to enjoy about the gameplay. Everything in these videos can and does happen during gameplay. If you're lukewarm on it, then you'll likely feel the same about the game itself. If you happen to really like what you see/hear in those videos, but you ended up not liking the game, that would be interesting and I'd like to specifically hear why, if that's the case.
Chances are, if none of that interests you about the core gameplay, then you won't like it. The smaller issues (automatically switching to one of the player's equipped handguns after cutscenes, the "last stand" feature putting the player in awkward spots that require shoulder-swapping the camera to get out of, Etc.) will seem much more glaring and less tolerable. The positives of the game will be harder to recognize if you personally don't like them, or if you have a preconception of what the game should be that differs from the way it is.
When it comes to whether a game is good or bad, you've got to look past your own preference and consider
who the game is good or bad for, preferably without a slant in which you paint aspects of a game that you despise in a particular light. If you want a gritty arcadey-type shooter with a camera that really captures the feel of a artifact-filled handy-cam, Kane and Lynch 2 is for you. If you want a weghtless, fast twitch arena shooter, Quake is right up your alley, and so forth.
Certain aspects of design achieve different things. the aspects of Max Payne 3 are as they're presented in the above videos. That core gameplay is different from that of Max Payne and it's different from that of Max Payne 2. The kind of experience one gets from playing those games is different from Max Payne 3 and that it differs from those other games is not inherently bad for many. Not everyone wants to play a sequel, or threequel, because they want exactly what was offered in previous series entries. Some may have never liked the series, or were mildly interested, yet wanted something with the same core concept (e.g. third-person shooting) but vastly improved or changed.
Some people shared your grievances. Some didn't. I distinctly remember there being responses to your "diving into a wall" gif where people asked "what did you expect?" and questioned why you had a problem in a game with a consistent approach to physics. some brought up that you can still aim and shoot while tumbling back. Some shared your sentiment that that got in the way of enjoying the game while others said it was part of a risk-reward system that made gameplay more intense. By using presenting that feature in the game as being inherently bad, you give off a sense of naivete, as if you don't even consider what this aspect of the game could contribute to, or that there might be those who would really appreciate it.
Not that you have to, or anything. But if you care enough to rally against a game more than a year after playing it, some open-mindedness and some attempts to understand how it works will probably make discussions about it less frustrating.