I actually quite like motion blur, bloom, and depth of field when well implemented.
They can be bad if applied excessively or in bad taste, but generally when given the option I keep them on.

The use of bloom in something like Metroid Prime 3 or the application of motion blur and depth of field in Naughty Dog's PS3/PS4 games is quite nice.

Funny you mention lens flare. It's something I don't get when the camera is supposed to not exist. I forgave it in Mario 64 as they are showing off this new-fangled 3D console.  One recent game just annoyed the shit out of me for a stupid effect. Lords of the Fallen.  Snow hitting the lens. Why? It's not Samus's Visor and it's not FP and it's a fantasy setting. Why is snow hitting the fucking lens?

Bad HDR is a good one.  I love Tiny Tina, but it is the worse HDR I have ever seen.  I have to turn it off because it burns my eyes.  And the in game  calibration doesn't work.  

Motion blur and film grain are the first two things I turn off.  I hate both.  

Hmm yeah, there's a whole list of questionable AA methods, FXAA for example.

And whatever technique Horizon FW used at release that actually gave me a migraine twice so I had to stop playing. Upscaling gone wrong

It had bad HDR as well, I played the game in SDR 1080p in quality mode instead. Great game, but not worth headaches!

Lighting effects gone wrong

Some games it adds to the aesthetics and scene really well... Mass Effect is probably one of the best examples.

Other games like Serious Sam just abused the technique.

We need to keep in mind that there are different "types" of HDR.

Halo 3 on the Xbox 360 used a HDR rendering pipeline... As did games like FarCry and Half Life 2.
For a good break down give this a read from Arstechnica and valve: https://arstechnica.com/features/2005/09/lostcoast/

In short it differs from today's "HDR" by being a rendering technique to better illustrate differences of brightness... And developers can use that extra frame information to build additional effects like Bloom or Motion Blur... Nothing happens on the display end.

Today we use HDR as additional information to tell a display, what areas to brighten or darken.

It was common in early 360/PS3 games for devs to spam specular/gloss maps across all kinds of surfaces regardless of whether it made sense, resulting in things like rock or trees or brickwork appearing overly shiny, which was rather ugly:

Thankfully this tendency died off as the gen progressed and devs learned how to make better use of the hardware.

I'm also really not a fan of how a lot of PS5/Xbox Series games render at low resolutions and lean heavily on FSR and other forms of reconstruction to upsample the image; it tends to create rather unpleasant results. I ended up playing Final Fantasy 16 in graphics mode cos the performance mode looked fine when you were standing still but dissolved into a murky mess every time there was movement.

Just give me 6th gen graffix with high res and fps and I'm set.

Get a Quest 3 ;)

This made me chuckle...but seriously, best looking Quest 3 games are somewhere in the ballpark of 8th Gen

How come we never noticed this level of distortion when Ps4 PRO was doinbg the checkerboard rendering to hit higher Res in performance modes?