So...is the former "flexible" but requiring "caution" and the latter "inflexible"? Or is the latter "flexible" within reason, and the former so open it verges on vacant, to reference that old saying about keeping an open mind?
And "flexibility" isn't the only thing that can cash out like this. For some, "complexity" is absolute anathema--it means busywork, "filling out your taxes" in order to play, comprehensive and utterly needless overhead for absolutely no gain. For others, it's a delight, the richness of a system with many parts that need careful consideration and which rewards skillful manipulation thereof. For some, "simplicity" is a godsend, a respite from the tedium and a chance to finally cut loose and play the way they want to play, regardless of what some pencil-pushing designer thinks. For others, it's a nightmare, a prison of inability and monotony without recourse that drains away whatever interest the game might offer.
This makes it very hard to unequivocally support any attribution of virtue, even if in principle the idea of something like "flexibility" or "elegance" or "ease of use" should be universally desirable.