I would replace "objectively" with "typically".

Michelin stars mean that a restaurant has been vetted by presumed skilled experts.

This means that you're going to have on average a better experience, but that you'll pay more for the experience you get (since they're in more demand). Finding a restaurant of similar quality without the stars will take more digging, but will likely give you better value.

99% of people going to restaurants do not care about the ambience or over-the-top service.

I have absolutely had the experience of an inexpensive local seafood restaurant on Long Island making much better food than an upscale place in Manhattan, for example.

Just because it's upscale doesn't mean it's good, and just because it's cheap doesn't mean it's bad, but there is typically a very strong correlation.

In upscale places that are bad go out of business, unless their primary means of gathering business isn't food, but instead is location/proximity to a source of near captive audiences.

That's ok. Others do.

Especially with things like seafood and steak. Honestly, I can make a better steak than any restaurant at home. I can shuck oysters and have fun. And as you said, with seafood in particular, little places in good locations often have better food!

But the experience of the fancy restaurant has it's value as well.

>99% of people going to restaurants do not care about the ambience or over-the-top service.

99% of people might not think think the difference is worth it; but I just don't accept the idea that 99% of people wouldn't think that the service and ambiance at Per Se is better than Olive Garden.

> 99% of people […]

Sure, McDonalds has sold like, a trillion hamburgers and a local started restaurant does like 100 covers a night. That doesn’t mean that they aren’t packed and that the reservations don’t go instantly, as soon as they’re available.