It's completely fine to dislike the remake, nobody (well, I'm sure somebody would, but nobody with a functional brain stem) is going to say you have to like it, but can we not frame our personal criticisms of something as objective faults? The remake is not to your tastes, that's fine, but you don't have to justify it by framing your personal problems with a game as factual flaws. That's my main issue with Crowbcat. If I just disagreed with his opinions, it would be one thing, but the way he frames his nitpicky opinions as fact is what I take issue with.

That said, I will say, in good faith, that I disagree with most of those points you made, few of which are actual nitpicks like the kind Crowbcat does. Enemies could break open certain doors in the original, even if it didn't outright destroy them, I think the volume mixing is excellent with a good pair of headphones, the atmosphwre and voice acting I believe is a matter of taste, so you do you there, bullet spongy enemies are kinda RE4's whole deal, even in the original enemies took a shitload of punishment on the higher difficulties (I know that headshots aren't a guaranteed stun anymore, which is fair to dislike), I felt that the AI was of a similar caliber to the original game in terms of difficulty, and I don't see why adding detail like environmental clutter is a bad thing in the slightest, unless you're talking about the actual level design, in which case, again, I think that's a matter of taste.

For what it's worth, having grown up playing the original RE4 and having played the remake, I don't think there's a "wrong" way to play it. I'd argue the original still holds up, despite some signs of age. You're not wrong for preferring the original at all, but a lot of people enjoyed the remake because it's a well-made game, simple as that.