The problem isn’t “it’s more complicated” but more “if something goes wrong there’s not a lot you can do”. There’s basically no redundancy and a lot of single points of failure. Having two sets of Parachutes is a lot harder to screw up than a powered landing.
With a normal capsule, you have multiple fuel tanks and redundant RCS thrusters so you’ll practically always be able to deorbit and land (since you also have redundant parachutes). If starship has a fuel leak, how are you going to land, even if you’re able to deorbit?
There are plenty of flat stretches all over the world: in Arizona, Kansas, West Siberia, Mongolia, all over Sahara, Egypt, Sudan, north of Argentina, etc, etc. There's no need for more than several dozen km. If a out-of-fuel Starship can still maneuver with its rudders, it can likely slow down enough for a rough landing.
As of the ocean, given low waves and the airspeed of say 200 km/h, most likely the craft will withstand it if it has withstood the reentry. At least one Starship demonstrated some limited seaworthiness.
Watch the videos of airliners veering off the runway onto flat ground which wrecks the airplane. The landing gear is designed for flat hard runways, not soft bumpy ground.
With a normal capsule, you have multiple fuel tanks and redundant RCS thrusters so you’ll practically always be able to deorbit and land (since you also have redundant parachutes). If starship has a fuel leak, how are you going to land, even if you’re able to deorbit?
There aren't many flat stretches of land.
As of the ocean, given low waves and the airspeed of say 200 km/h, most likely the craft will withstand it if it has withstood the reentry. At least one Starship demonstrated some limited seaworthiness.
But during landing? You can't send another ship to rescue the crew that is aboard another Starship that just failed being caught.