The answer depends strongly on your audience. I agree that keeping the slides simple is nicer, and more engaging. Your not tempted to just read your slides, but they serve as a visual anchor for your audience and help them follow the talk. If your doing a sales presentation or similar, a Steve Jobs-style presentation can help you "wow" the audience. Also, you can use slides mostly to convey information that you can't with speech, e.g. graphs, screenshots, etc..
However, as I said, you have to consider your audience. In my field (particle physics), typically half of the audience is staring at their laptops during a talk. Some of them are following your slides there, some are doing something completely different. There are dozens of plots and numbers and technical details that you have to show, so the slides are typically pretty dense. In fact, the whole purpose of many talks is to "present plots", so your talking is auxilliary to the slides, not the other way around. You explain certain features of the images, guesticulating, and answering questions. The other thing is that our slides serve as documentation for the talks, so people expect to understand the gist of the talk by looking at the slides afterwards. As an (advanced) student, people would even give me their research talk slides instead of papers or books to learn from.
So, giving a "nice", "best-practice" talk in a work meeting of physiscists, you'd probably confuse and disappoint them, if they are listening at all. If you are in the humanities, you'd probably not use powerpoint at all, or just one or two slides with important quotes.
My tip is to look at what your colleagues are doing, and to start from there. It can never hurt to clean it up a bit, make it concise and legible, but at the same time try not to alienate your audience.