Resident Evil (1) is another example of gameplay some would call "bad" helping a game. In RE, controlling your character feels like driving a tank. You use L/R to rotate and U/D to move forward or backward, and must come to a complete stop when aiming rotating your gun up and down in front of you without any effective cue to mark its position in 3D space. To make matters worse, it all goes to hell with a single jump cut of the camera. Supposedly, you play a special-ops agent, but you feel more like an epileptic Roomba.
And it helped the experience because I was terrified to encounter anything. I walked down halls in utter terror that I would have to fight something -- turning awkwardly, dying while I tried to get a bead on it -- jumping at every audio cue, and practically fainting at the notion of a boss fight.
On a side note, "bad" controls only helped because someone hadn't done it better yet. Once someone improved control in the survival-horror genre, it became like an arms race between decent controls and designers' ability to maintain a sense of fear. Resident Evil 4 features better controls, but still locks you into place when you aim, making the paradigm palatable with nuanced and innovative shooting-gallery gameplay (e.g., hitting specific points at certain parts of enemy animations to defeat them). When control limits are completely removed, like in Left 4 Dead, the agility and numbers of enemies are scaled significantly to maintain their status as a threat. Could the lumbering of zombies of the original Resident Evil exist in a game that gave you player control like Left 4 Dead?
But if the original RE creators prioritized control, would more important elements have suffered? If you experienced Resident Evil before other modern survival horror games, you might remember how scary it was to walk through those halls, with the twisted camera angles only increasing your fear, and realize "bad" control helped make a classic. One more example, tomorrow...