The fact that such fights and battle scenes are difficult to follow is precisely the point. Real life conflict is chaotic and disorienting.
This seems a really strange thing to say given that very much about Star Trek is unrealistic, especially the space battles. Any "realism" will always take a backseat to the intent of the director. If the idea is to confuse the audience, then fine, that's his choice. But I think some are saying they prefer to not be confused or overwhelmed when it comes to something as simple as a space battle. I don't know if that is a majority opinion though. Maybe some people like to be overwhelmed with lasers and rockets and lens flares, oh my.
It is a stylistic choice. Directors almost always try to provoke a visceral response from the audience when they include depictions of battle (small or large scale). They want audiences to feel what the characters feel as much as possible, rather than offer a detached "oh look what's happening over there" sensation. It has only been possible to do so for a relatively short amount of time. The "realism" isn't about what the audience sees but rather what it feels while the battle is going on. Film has always been primarily focused on getting audiences to have an emotional response (to what degree film makers succeed is, of course, highly variable).
Naturally some people do not like this stylistic choice. Nothing wrong with that. But directors do not owe the audience the satisfaction of their expectations. They make creative decisions that reflect their views of how to best tell the story and hope the audience agrees. Given the ubiquitous presence of the "chaos and confusion" approach to depicting conflict onscreen, I'd say most audiences don't mind most of the time.