The LCG, of course, is just not in the same league. While it is wonderfully developed now, and such, I feel that it is just a combat card game with some wonderful art and Lovecraftian names thrown around. That's not to say I dislike it, of course, I merely have a completely different set of expectations when I get the cards out.
This is a really good thread, both in terms of opinions and resources, and I have very little to add to it, except that the above quote has me thinking about the factors that shape my expectations of a game. For example, I still haven't played Elder Sign, but based on the previews and videos I've seen, I imagine that the immersion would break very easily for me, and that my experience would suffer. But at the same time, immersion failures are part of what I absolutely love about the LCG. I defy any of you not to smile at the thought of a Clever Zoog driving a Getaway Car. The game succeeds beautifully, but on its own terms.
And maybe that's why MoM sparks such an ambivalent response...AH, visionary and baroque as it is, is either your kind of game or completely not your kind of game (and you can probably tell without even opening the box), whereas MoM has that "designed by a marketing committee" feeling of being almost the right game for a wider range of people, but just ends up leaving a lot of them frustrated.
(Not that I have anything about hybrids and other crossover-type games, mind you; when they work, they're fantastic, but there's definitely a trade-off between, say, gamist and narrativist elements, and some combinations will work better for a given set of design goals than others.)