I think the wordiness of WoT is the foundation for many of its strengths. The series shines IMO on (1) character and plot progression being organic and large in scope, without having clearly demarcated points where everything jumps forward a huge amount, (2) depth of world building and extent of characters, with an especially large cast that are decently fleshed out and (3) foreshadowing being carefully placed throughout the series as a nice treat for anyone that liked it enough to re-read it.
The volume of words helps to make all of those possible. In particular (3), as details can be hidden in just the volume of text that already exists without it jumping out at the reader.
None of that is to say you're wrong for disliking it explicitly for that! Sometimes we dislike things for the same reason someone else likes it, or vice versa. I just wanted to chime in with some contrary thoughts to maybe put that wordiness under a different perspective.
Malazan is one half of my answer here. Though I did like it. I just expected to love it, especially early on. My disappointment was immense in going from thinking it was one of the best series I'd read to thinking it just barely was enjoyable enough for me to be glad I read it.
The series started off so strong for me. I loved the first four books, book five lost me with it meandering off entirely. Then book six won me back. Books 7-10 were an absolute struggle for me. I barely finished the last two books and have no interest in returning to the world with the side books that exist.
For my tastes, Erikson dialed up the philosophical and sadistic elements way too much in the latter half of the series. I think if books 1-4 and 6 were released as a stand alone set of five, with the rest not existing, it would have been one of my favorite book series of all time.
Also I'm still annoyed that the whole Silverfox plot just... completely disappeared. Such a monumentally important character and she just suddenly ceases to exist in the story.