Yeah, I can get behind nearly all of this. Your point about simplicity/complexity is bang on.I want a game that isn't afraid to make demands on the players and assumes that people who want to play it are both smart and dedicated to making the experience fun rather than looking to exploit every imperfection.
The game doesn't need to worry about being easy to run, because it is perfectly fine to make mistakes and get better with experience. And there are plenty of other games out there if you want to ease into it.
The game doesn't need to worry about not being overly complex. If you can achieve the same thing, then being simple is better. But if a little complexity adds to the richness, then this should not be shunned.
I want a game that goes in with eyes wide open that players who seek to destroy the experience may very well do exactly that, but the game isn't going to reign in the options of players who won't do that by adding rules simply designed to foolproof the balance.
I want a game that recognizes it can't cover every situation, so it creates a clear framework and then puts the burden on the players to work with that guidance to color outside the lines when needed.
Perhaps the only things I'd prefer beyond this is that while the game isn't afraid to make demands on players, that it also remains playable when it doesn't make such demands, in order to allow for more casual types of play and-or players; and that the system be robust enough to be able to handle players who do try to exploit the imperfections (this probably needs a bit of rulings-not-rules ethos to allow the GM power to close loopholes as and when they appear).