First, I would like to make it clear that this is not supposed to be offensive to people who have their project(s) featured. I’m also not trying to say the featured projects are bad, just questioning the very questionable description of this studio.
So, why don’t projects that fulfil the listed criteria, especially complex projects, get featured? They used to, why’s it different now? Here’s what I mean:

Propose Projects to be Featured studio wrote:

These are the kind of things we're looking for:
- simple projects
- complex projects

Why do the simple projects far outnumber the complex ones? There’s no benefit to featuring only simple projects.

What about innovative projects?

Propose projects to be Featured studio wrote:

- projects that show an innovative use of Scratch

Oxford Languages Dictionary wrote:

Innovative
Adjective
(of a product, idea, etc.) featuring new methods; advanced and original.
“innovative designs”
(of a person) introducing new ideas; original and creative in thinking.
“writers who are now viewed as innovative”

Hardly any of the projects show new ideas or methods. I think someone had a slight disagreement with that dictionary. Let’s look at another one.

Cambridge Dictionary wrote:

Innovative
Adjective
using new methods or ideas

Huh. It looks like they all say that.

Propose Projects to be Featured studio wrote:

- projects that inspire

Projects that inspire what? If, when I was new to Scratch, the featured projects were like they are today, I’d compare them to games like Minecraft and 2048 and think “Scratch is very limited. You can’t make real games on Scratch”. I can imagine other people would’ve thought the same. But you can make real games on Scratch. It’s just they don’t get featured often at all.

Their are many reasons, such as understandability, favouritism, access differences, etc. Basically, there can and probably does exist “complex projects” that, though great in quality, may not be as featured due to people's access to the project, understandability (ability to understand the project) or just not into those kinds of project. There exists other possible reasons, this is just to name a few.

Stegie1234 wrote:

Why do the simple projects far outnumber the complex ones?

What is your definition of “complex”? I consider any project using the pen blocks to be complex, and the Scratch Team has featured a few of those recently.

Stegie1234 wrote:

There’s no benefit to featuring only simple projects.

Sure there is. If a project is simple, that often means it is easier to use, easier to understand, and easier to remix. These are all important for Scratch's goal to inspire others to make their own creations and remix existing projects.

Stegie1234 wrote:

What about innovative projects?

[…]

(of a person) introducing new ideas; original and creative in thinking.

Hardly any of the projects show new ideas or methods.

Sure they do. Remember that a project doesn't need to have new types of coding in order to be innovative. Like that recent Waffle Tic-Tac-Toe project. Sure, it's the familiar Tic-Tac-Toe, but it's on a waffle! That's such a good idea. It makes so much sense, I can't believe I hadn't thought of it. The mere idea of playing Tic-Tac-Toe on a waffle is innovative itself.

Stegie1234 wrote:

Projects that inspire what?

Projects that inspire coding and creativity. Many of the featured projects do that for many people — not all people, of course, but many people.

Stegie1234 wrote:

If, when I was new to Scratch, the featured projects were like they are today, I’d compare them to games like Minecraft and 2048 and think “Scratch is very limited. You can’t make real games on Scratch”.

This is a matter of perspective, I guess. When I first started using Scratch, I wanted to make my own games using it. I was inspired by things like simple platformers and other simple games. Those were easy to play around with, and I got better at coding as a result.

Stegie1234 wrote:

I can imagine other people would’ve thought the same. But you can make real games on Scratch. It’s just they don’t get featured often at all.

What is a “real game,” then? Most games that get featured are “real games” to me.

Please remember that said projects do not have to fulfill all criteria (at least that is my understanding, as a project is quite difficult to be simple and complex at once), and that a project may be more complex than it seems. A seemingly simple project could actually be very complex in the code department.

I’m not arguing against featuring simple projects; I’m arguing for featuring an equal amount of simple and complex projects.

Za-Chary wrote:

What is your definition of “complex”?

Code that contains advanced uses of lists, variables, custom blocks etc. and also requires intermediate or advanced knowledge of programming.

Za-Chary wrote:

I consider any project using the pen blocks to be complex, and the Scratch Team has featured a few of those recently.

Do you think pen is really a good measure of how complex or difficult to make a project is? I used to make “pen” projects on my old account, one of which contained 9 blocks and literally drew a square on the screen, and many projects like that exist on Scratch.

Za-Chary wrote:

Stegie1234 wrote:

There’s no benefit to featuring only simple projects.

Sure there is. If a project is simple, that often means it is easier to use, easier to understand, and easier to remix. These are all important for Scratch's goal to inspire others to make their own creations and remix existing projects.

I didn’t say there wasn’t a benefit to featuring simple projects; I meant there wasn’t a benefit to the majority or all of the featured projects being simple.

Za-Chary wrote:

Stegie1234 wrote:

What about innovative projects?

[…]

(of a person) introducing new ideas; original and creative in thinking.

Hardly any of the projects show new ideas or methods.

Sure they do. Remember that a project doesn't need to have new types of coding in order to be innovative. Like that recent Waffle Tic-Tac-Toe project. Sure, it's the familiar Tic-Tac-Toe, but it's on a waffle! That's such a good idea. It makes so much sense, I can't believe I hadn't thought of it. The mere idea of playing Tic-Tac-Toe on a waffle is innovative itself.

But why do none of them have new types of coding? Also, many of the projects, such as “icon creator 2”, are just and idea used over and over again. (I suppose a counterargument to that would be that not all the projects have to be innovative.)

Za-Chary wrote:

Stegie1234 wrote:

Projects that inspire what?

Projects that inspire coding and creativity. Many of the featured projects do that for many people — not all people, of course, but many people.

I honestly don’t see how any of the featured projects could inspire coding, but I’ll take your word for it.

Za-Chary wrote:

Stegie1234 wrote:

I can imagine other people would’ve thought the same. But you can make real games on Scratch. It’s just they don’t get featured often at all.

What is a “real game,” then? Most games that get featured are “real games” to me.

Every game on Scratch is a “real game” because, well, it’s a game and you can’t argue with that. What I meant by “real game” is games that look like they were coded “professionally” in JavaScript or Unity etc., the kind of games that people who don’t use Scratch think of if you say “video game”. I said it like that because I couldn’t find a better word for it.

Stegie1234 wrote:

Code that contains advanced uses of lists, variables, custom blocks etc. and also requires intermediate or advanced knowledge of programming.

What is your definition of “intermediate or advanced knowledge of programming”?

Stegie1234 wrote:

Do you think pen is really a good measure of how complex or difficult to make a project is? I used to make “pen” projects on my old account, one of which contained 9 blocks and literally drew a square on the screen, and many projects like that exist on Scratch.

I have no idea. It almost seems that a “complex” project does not have a well-defined concrete definition …

Stegie1234 wrote:

I didn’t say there wasn’t a benefit to featuring simple projects; I meant there wasn’t a benefit to the majority or all of the featured projects being simple.

Sure there is. If most featured projects are simple, that often means most featured projects are easier to use, easier to understand, and easier to remix. These are all important for Scratch's goal to inspire others to make their own creations and remix existing projects. This is especially important given the featured project row's prominence on the front page.

Stegie1234 wrote:

But why do none of them have new types of coding? Also, many of the projects, such as “icon creator 2”, are just and idea used over and over again. (I suppose a counterargument to that would be that not all the projects have to be innovative.)

True, that is a counterargument, but my initial comeback is that coding is not the only aspect of Scratch. Creativity and presentation is a huge component of it. As for the icon creator, note that there will always be Scratchers who have never seen an icon creator before. Even if they have, they perhaps have never seen one that they liked, and a featured icon creator could inspire them, if it's a new one that they turn out to like. Even if they have seen plenty of icon creators that they've liked, they certainly would not have seen one in this Scratcher's art style. In any case, the project would showcase innovation, either through an icon creator or through a new art style.

Also: how does one define “new types of coding”? Are you suggesting that the Scratch Team should not feature 3D platformers because those have been made before?

Stegie1234 wrote:

I honestly don’t see how any of the featured projects could inspire coding, but I’ll take your word for it.

For example, those who see a featured icon creator may be inspired to code their own icon creator.

Stegie1234 wrote:

Every game on Scratch is a “real game” because, well, it’s a game and you can’t argue with that. What I meant by “real game” is games that look like they were coded “professionally” in JavaScript or Unity etc., the kind of games that people who don’t use Scratch think of if you say “video game”. I said it like that because I couldn’t find a better word for it.

Why look for professional games on Scratch? Isn't that what Steam or a Nintendo Switch is for?

Dreamazon was featured recently. Does that not count as a “complex project” to you?

for \({
set [i v] to [0]
}; <(i) < [10]>; {
change [i v] by (1)
}) \{{
think (i) for (1) secs
}} :: control

The Scratch Forums support bf +-<>[],.

donotforgetmycode wrote:

Dreamazon was featured recently. Does that not count as a “complex project” to you?

I mean, I would assume that by “complex projects” OP refers to stuff such as raycasters, in which case, no, that doesn't count.

As for OP, I doub't most of scratch would really understand, enjoy, or want to see “tri-filler thats .1 seconds faster when filling 1 million triangles” on the front page, and if you're not talking about these projects, then donotforgetmycode provides an example of a pretty complex project.

Innovation is nice and all, but Scratch still has to remember that not everyone is interested in some unique algorithm that involves college level math which achieves some strange results that you likely won't even understand unless you read 3 wikipedia articles

I think it might have something to do with remixes etc. Cloud variables, for example, could be really confusing to newer scratchers. Because featured projects are the first thing new scratchers see, I think it's so that they can experiment and remix. It's also important they are able to understand the projects I think? Idk. Sorry this is a very messy reply lol.