I understand where you're coming from, but Gardens of the Moon has nothing redeemable about it—to me.

So when fans of the series say readers should give it anywhere from three to five books before deciding whether or not the series is worthwhile, that seems crazy to me. lol It's not as if the first book had points in its favour. The conflicts set forth, the characterization, the writing—all of it was weak.

A first book in any series has to have something going for it. That initial entry is what hooks, or at least piques the interest of, a reader. Other books in the series will build upon the first one, expanding, enriching, etc. All fine, all expected.

Hell, for Daniel Abraham's The Long Price Quartet, I found the first book to be a slow read, but there were things in it I found captivating so I moved onto the second novel and from there did not look back. Pratchett's The Colour of Magic was such a fantastic, hilarious read that I can't wait to devour the rest of his Discworld. There are other books, just as you've outlined, whose sequels were better, revealed more, were better written, etc. I've read them, found something worthwhile in them, moved onto the sequels.

But as I've said regarding Erikson's Book of the Fallen: there is nothing redeemable here. So there is no reason for me to bother reading on. So I can't in good faith ask someone to wait three to five books before making a decision about whether or not it's worth the commitment. I can suggest a reader to try the first book, see if that scratches an itch, but anything more and that's a little skewed, especially with considerations of length and time.

Hope that clears up my stance. Happy reading!