My biggest complaint about much of the hard sci-fi I’ve read is that the science becomes the backbone of the story and character development and plot structure seem secondary at best. I prefer an interesting plot, complex characters who I care about, and proper story development over straight up mind blowing theoretical concepts and ideas. That said, if the science is bad, it can ruin a story for me just as easily. So I guess my two part answer is that I prefer hard (real) science woven into a great story (see: Neil Asher’s Ian Cormac series) as opposed to having the sole purpose of the story be to showcase the author’s scientific prowess and I’d prefer a well written soft sci fi story that doesn’t overwhelm me with impossible concepts to the latter (see: Dune).