The main character isn't always the one who gets the most POV time. Think of Sherlock, or Great Gatsby. The POV character isn't actually the focal point of the story, but the lens through which the MCs are viewed. It's usually the case that the MC(s) are the ones with the most POV time, but not always.
Third-person, even omniscient, can still hide things from the reader. The narrator always gets to choose what to tell the reader and what to keep from them. Granted, an omniscient narrator has to do a big more in-universe logic rather than simply "Nah, not gonna tell you this" or else the reader can feel cheated, but there are plenty of ways around that. Lies of omission, or an unreliable narrator, burying the truth within a bunch of other details, things like that can obfuscate details you, the author, don't want the reader to obviously know. Or you can simply not focus on the scene where the info comes out, that's perfect valid as well, same as you would in 1P.
Sure I agree.
Every approach is valid. It's the execution that differentiates them. Some are more difficult than others, but there really any general technique that is invalid for telling a story, simply those that are more likely to work better than others. And even then, it's still "more likely" and not "always better." Someone could do a purely character-driven story from third-person omniscient and do it beautifully, while someone else does it first-person and just blows it. It's where craft comes into play. It's like choosing a difficulty to play a game at. Some modes are harder than others, but none are truly impossible.
What’s the equivalent of a no-hit Dark Souls run using only a Broken Sword Hilt? Writing a 2P PoV story that’s actually readable?
And to be honest, at this point in my life I'm much more likely to take the path of least resistance
