Apart from the personal taste thing, I think it's funny how bewildered people are at Blaze being hired. I know hindsight is 20/20, but it makes a lot of sense to me that Steve would push for someone so absolutely un-Bruce-ish. That way, any success on their end would instantly mean "we're pulling through with zero need for our former vocalist who's trashing us in the press".
It may seem petty, but it's not like they kicked Bruce out, right? I don't fault the band for trying to do things differently – just imagining them hiring one of the many singers they may have considered (Doogie White, James LaBrie apparently, Andre Matos, Ralf Scheepers or whatever) with a range similar to Bruce's makes me cringe. Whoever were hired would hit high the notes, but would they stop there? Wouldn't they perhaps start copying the mannerisms and overall aesthetics – thus inevitably leading the press to comment on how they got a copycat, while Bruce was still the real deal? How would the studio albums be like?
I'm just spitballing and playing devil's advocate (a practice I will now refer to as "satanic drooling"), but I do really value the fact that the band went for something unique, even if it was a clumsy affair (with not enough rehearsal for the X-Factour and some misguided setlist choices, which I absolutely do agree that are issues with the band at the time). I'd say the albums are pretty solid for what they are and that, when they were "on" live, they were great.
Watching one of the last concerts with Blaze at the helm (perhaps the last one), at Curitiba in 1998, I was astounded at how the band felt into what they were doing, even though all members on stage (barring Blaze) knew there'd be a singer change soon. There was some camaraderie even amidst some turmoil, and you can tell everyone was trying to make the best out of what they had.
tl;dr I'm glad this phase in the band exists and, even if you hate it, I'm not sure it's that incomprehensible that Blaze got the job.