I think they're good, but not amazing and they're IMO overrated. Hobb's a competent writer and the Farseer trilogy does have some good aspects to it - ie Fitz's characterisation, but there are some moments which just worsen the series for me. Her worldbuilding is terrible, but that isn't a huge issue. The characterisation is on the whole good, but sometimes a bit too simplistic, the same with her plot, but of course this is all focused on Fitz. So if you like Fitz, there's a high chance you'll like the series. But a lot of the other aspects are relatively weak - and the ending of the trilogy is one of the weakest I've seen, especially for a series that otherwise was pretty good. The story is a bit dragged out beyond its natural length, and I couldn't help feeling that the end of the second book was the natural end to the series, while the third felt as if it had been written just so it was a trilogy and kept the publishers happy.
See for yourself though, because a lot of people like this series, while others don't, and there aren't really any effective generalisations you can make. It's quite a dividing series in terms of opinion, much as Donaldson's Thomas Covenant (not that the two series are particularly similar at all - just in terms of controversy).
). It doesn't seem as polished as Liveship, but it still has me hooked. I'm really looking forward to the Tawny Man series. I'm hoping that the Farseer and Liveship stories will meld together and share some characters.
