I'm reading this discussion, and in particular what the OP is saying, and my takeaway is that he/she likes games with shorter ball times, versus long. I say this b/c Hobbit is used as an example of a game the OP doesn't like, and the games the OP does like has shorter ball times. OP even references TWD as a game they like, despite the fact that it has a deep rule-set.
You tend to find "deeper" rule-sets on games that have longer ball times. This makes sense: if the ball is going to be in play longer, and game time longer, you need deeper rules to fill up this time space.
Medieval Madness has a fairly deep rule-set for a 90s game, yet, that game is universally loved. I don't think having more basic rules is really what people want. Maybe a better way to phrase this, is, "less esoteric rules"? For example, I like a game that has a really good rule-set, that despite taking some time to understand, makes some sense and ties into the game. But when you have a game like SW, that has ridiculous mutipliers, even though I'm a competitive person that has been in the hobby for a long time, I'm like, "WTF?". Yes, I want deep. I want there to be a lot there, but I also don't want to get my calculator out.
It's funny how we've swung from "Where's the code?" to, "Please give me a basic bitch game" (I kid, but, you get it)