I think some of the sound choices are a little dated, the awful electronic drums, some of the synth choices.
However these songs also need to be seen as an evolutionary process. Some of us will like the baby versions, some the older, more mature ones. We ourselves will have shifting opinions....
Shifting opinions indeed. As I got increasingly less enamored with Mark's solo work (simply too low key and, frankly, dull), I could always get my "fix" by listening to and watching the Wembley and Sydney shows. Nowadays, I feel they tried to hard to make the DS music work on the big stages. The band sound and look corny to me now. Mark especially just doesn't have the charisma and stage persona that those stages require of a frontman. Your mileage may vary, of course. Clubs and max theatre-sized venues are where Mark thrives and where his music feels right.
Interesting what you say regarding the frontman thing. It's something I've considered before but never really delved into too deeply because it doesn't bother me in the least. Mark is effortlessly cool as he doesn't leap around, swear constantly, jump into the crowd or bring any onto the stage. He is all the more likeable and charismatic to me for all that.
When I look at other bands/artists and see their antics I just cringe as I see their attempts to endear themselves to the audience.
I have also always liked MK for that reason, but because of the crazy success of BIA, the band suddenly became "pop stars" and played on the same stages as mega acts of that time. You need stage presence like Springsteen, McCartney or Tina Turner to really pull that off. In hindsight, I just don't think that that "suited" the band and the music. And as we know, later on Mark wanted to get away from all that.
(Of course I don't expect die-hard MK nuts like Robson to agree with any of this 
)
I think the bands appeal has everything to do with the absence of that kind of bluster.
DS are an enigma of sorts if you think about it. A pub rock band playing in stadiums. The ultimate opposite of punk, used to sell and commoditize music (CD, Phillips etc), unfairly (imo) associated with yuppie culture and the worst excesses of the 80s, and yet virtuoso musicians, performing songs subverting those same associations (MFN for example), and of course something thats always forgotten, wildly more popular than just about every other band of that era. MK almost became the archetypal anti-frontman.
The whole DS phenomenon fascinates me....
The band were extremely lucky in that they became posterboys for the new CD medium (lots of free marketing), the amazing, new-fangled computer-animated MFN video was played a lot on MTV, plus their clean image and inoffensive songs made them palatable to a very large demographic, young and old. Very serendipitous. The music itself was not groundbreaking or outstandingly good (with the exception of BIA, the song). I'm not taking anything away from Mark's talents, but without the hits he would have been another Richard Thompson, Ry Cooder, John Hiatt, etc., all super-talented musicians, but without mainstream success.
You mentioned "virtuoso musicians", but that simply isn't true. In 85, probably Alan Clarke and Chris White might fit that description and were the best in the band in terms of technical ability; the rest were good, solid, well-rehearsed musicians, but nothing outstanding (especially John). Mark was/is different in that he has a unique touch and sound, and because he was the songwriter, he knew innately the emotional impact his playing should express. But he's not a virtuoso in the real sense of the word, even back then when he paid a lot more attention to his guitar playing.
