There are other programs that may be even worse, but the point is, if you travel this rarely (in terms of when you need to stay on points), and you think that one program should work for all destinations equally, then I think perhaps it's your approach that is the problem.

I find places where Marriott works well and places where Marriott works poorly. But then I do mulitple trips a year, and mostly not to typical "aspirational" destinations.

I did do a trip that was 'aspirational" for me (dunno if for anyone else) last month, and used 35k points for a nice SpringHill Suites in Anchorage Alaska (with free parking, which the FS properties wouldn't have had), and on cash the rooms were in the $250-$300/night range in July. So I didn't consider that that bad a value. (Across town, Hilton was charging 60000 points as a minimum, even though the cash rates were no worse. So doesn't that make Hilton worse in that particular comparison?)

I consider Anchorage "aspirational" because I got way more "wow" from side trips -- like watching bears fishing for salmon at Brooks Falls, and kayaking across an iceberg-filled lake and then hiking on Spencer Glacier, and taking a tour boat across another iceberg-filled lake to the face of Portage Glacier -- than I could ever get out any boring-for-me beach lounging. Anchorage was simply the logical base for all these side trips, but the season for doing this kind of stuff around Anchorage is so short that hotels skyrocket in cash prices during that time, and thus the (cash) pricing is kinda "aspirational" too (though it's not much worse than midtown Manhattan NYC most any time).