I'm only saying that the game is VERY amenable to playing with a pretty simply 'canned' set of options and getting a sort of character of a simple archetype.
If you have the clear expectation going in that certain archetypes will be 'simple.' It doesn't seem too much of a stretch to expect a wizard to be complicated and a barbarian to be simple, but after decades with the game, the idea that anyone using a weapon must be simplistic and anyone using magic complicated is drilled into us a little too hard, and it's difficult to say with certainty what a new player - one coming from playing video games and, IDK, reading/watching Harry Potter and Twighlight and the like, might 'reasonably' expect. But, if you step out of the D&D paradigm for a sec, does it really seem unreasonable to expect a magic-using character who 'just' blasts things with fire, say, being fairly simple? Or, conversely, to expect a duelist & spy sort of character to have more to it than the above barbarian? I don't think those're unreasonable expectations, but in D&D, you'll have learn that if you want some interest/engagement/options, you simply must take up magic.
OTOH, choosing the simple archetype means both knowing you want 'simple' (which is an assumption, in itself - who says new players go into the game with the assumption that there'll be classes and that different classes will be wildly different in terms of meta-game complexity?), and reviewing the options to determine which are which. Rather than just jumping in playing whatever - probably genre-referent - idea appeals. That's a barrier to entry, right there, because players may come to the game wanting to play a sort of character that the classes don't cover, or that the DM/experienced-players will steer them away from because it's 'too complicated' (which is patronizing, in itself, but probably necessary).
Again, think of 'Axe dwarf'. In 5e you pick dwarf, get an axe, pick a fighting style of 'great weapon' and choose either BattleMaster or Champion.
You probably think 'Gimli,' TBF, if you have any particular thoughts about dwarves & axes, to start with, at all. Also, you don't choose Champ vs BM until 3rd, FWIW, and, at first, you choose one of six fighting styles that'll shape your character for the rest of his career & which scale with level differently from eachother, and a Background, and pick the specific skills from class and background that will be the only ones you'll ever get better at it, unless Feats are allowed. (Tho, yeah, traits &c may be just color, especially if the DM can't be bothered with inspiration.)
In 4e you would pick dwarf and fighter, then great weapon style, and then several feats
Again, TBF, from the PH, you'd pick dwarf (just a dwasf, no sub-race), and greatweapon from a choice of two, not half a dozen, both of which scale with level just fine. And only one feat, then skills. Then exploits, but each choice is from a very small list.
It's also worth noting that both 4e & 5e provide a fair bit of build guidance and starting packages that further reduce the effort involved, and that pregens are a fine option for new players, as well...
The BIG difference though is ongoing. 5e you have no more choices required, except maybe to pick some techniques or whatever they call them. In 4e you have constantly pick feats, powers, ASIs, then a PP and an ED if you go that high, etc.
In 4e those choices come at about 1/level, so that's hardly overwhelming, and if you goof, you can also retrain a past choice each level. It was actually very friendly to learning the game as you go, rather than needing system mastery and 20-level builds up-front. It was just less friendly to re-learning the game if you already new a past edition.
STAYING an effective axe dwarf is not 100% straightforward.
It really kinda is. You keep putting your stats for leveling into the same stats you prioritized at 1st, and you pick up the best weapons & protective items you can. You /can/ manage a 'wish list' if you're into that, or you can count on the DM to 'drop' the basics - or the DM can turn on Inherent Bonuses and that becomes a non-issue. The only borked part was feat taxes, you /had/ to take an expertise feat and some other HotFL/K uber-feats or fall behind the 'fixed' math, and if the designers didn't get a class or feature just right at release, there was an increasing tendency to patch them with feats instead of just errata them.
Oh sure but it had switches and toggles largely in the form of feats to make it far more interesting for those who are less interested in 1 button play ...
The archer ranger was viable if you chose to one-button play it and just spam twin strike, but, the moment you got bored with that, there were encounter & daily powers waiting for you. When combat stopped, you were well-able to contribute to a Skill Challenge.
Realistically, there's enough 4e material there to run campaigns for the next decade or so if you wanted to. Between the modules from Dungeon magazine (if you were quick enough to download them) and the actual print content, 4e has a bloody MOUNTAIN of material.
There was some 4e material we probably could've passed on if it meant getting a DMG 3 and more grist for Epic, that would truly have made it playable for decades to come, as it is, you have to reach a teeny bit at Epic - some DMs have a talent for that (or trouble not bleeding into Epic too early), but Heroic & Paragon were made clearer in DMG 1 & 2. If there's one thing we really missed out on with 4e's short run (other than a Martial Controller, obviously), it'd be better guidance for Epic,
I do want to emphasize I am not talking about freedom to reflavor not certain any edition except 3e tried to take that away.
Re-flavoring or re-skinning was not much of a thing in D&D /until/ 3e, and then it was limited to the appearance of the character & his gear.
Not that it didn't exist - the 1e PH weapon tables have entries that make other weapons not listed equivalent to something on the table, for instance - just that it wasn't generally in the players' hands.
For instance, if you wanted your spell to look different from the norm, in 1e, you'd research a new spell, because how spells looked was spelled out in the description and knowing & identifying them was part of 'player skill,' so a different-looking spell was more powerful because it could be deceptive. In 2e, you could get the same advantage by casting Sense Shifting (Tome of Magic, IIRC), first. In 3e, you could take Spell Thematics (feat) to personalize the appearance of your magic. In 4e, you could just describe any power (not just spells) how you liked, as long as doing so didn't go changing keywords.
So there was actually a progression going in D&D towards greater player freedom in imagining and customizing their characters. In terms of where 4e might've gone, there's every indication that it was continuing to evolve in that same direction. Backgrounds and Themes, for instance, were both added in the first two years of it's run. Then skill powers. Then MCing was expanded with the Hybrid rules in PH3.
You could probably have expected each new PH and/or setting player's guide to include expansions like those.