As someone who jumped into the mire hip-deep when fourth edition came out, I feel an urge to add my own two cents to this mix, since I see a lot of the same arguments that, if you will pardon the comparison, led to a lot of circular whining on the official WotC and RPG.net forums.
A little about my own experiences: the very first pen and paper RPG I ever got into in a big way was Exalted, back when I was in high school. I had seen World of Darkness, and sat in on a game session among my friends once, and it wasn't wholly my thing. I fell totally into the Exalted setting, and embraced the high ridiculousness of the character possibilities and over-the-top powers whole-heartedly.
I didn't get a chance to play D&D until college, when I got into a weekly group with some friends in our dorm. Most of the characters I play and create tend to be expys of established characters from films and games, since that helps me to define a personality and mindset when it comes to actual role playing scenarios, and I kept finding that the rules for class and character kept conflicting with my ideas, and our DM was rather set in the basics of flow when it came to combat. I'd start describing what my character would do in detail, and try to have fun with the scenery, and my DM would just say "Look, just roll for attack, okay?"
3.5 edition had been around for so long and had so much supplemental material that immediate proficiency wasn't possible for me, nor was depth really an option for our DM and the other players. I was trying to feel out what characters and classes might be fun, in a party that consisted of tremendously min-maxed, multiclassed behemoths, so the experience was highly discouraging from just about every angle. Even when I got to play with a group that was more willing to play from the core handbook to help me out, things just got bogged down with the built-in limitations to character options and the alignment wheel - which, more often than not, I saw people use as a way to justify not having to justify what their character did ("I'm chaotic neutral, wheee!")
4th edition came as a great surprise and a wonderful experience, because it felt more like Exalted was to me. Yes, it is more tactical in its approach and execution, which works well to encourage groups to be thinking and acting as a team as they move through the stories. Things are simplified in build and execution, true, but that's a good thing for new players and veterans alike to streamline their options and not to spend precious minutes and waste table space with indexing seven different splat books to try and remember what that one obscure feat lets you do and when it lets you do it. There's a lot more emphasis on the player building the fine details, rather than letting the rules or the numbers do it.
I had a tremendous amount of FUN playing a half-elf rogue that was more in the style of an Errol Flynn swashbuckler (using Charisma based powers to do damage), or my Marcus Fenix dragonborn Warlord (with healing powers that involved kicking my party members in the rear and shouting at them
), and my roommate got to play his Raven Queen paladin unrestricted, and was quite happy with the whole experience. Also, one of our group's DMs (who is a 'professional' dungeon master, invited to help run special events) was ecstatic at the ease with which he could create his own world, monsters, and situations to throw at players, and how there were clearer rules for situations outside of the realm of combat, and a lot more guidelines for improvisation and actually using the scenery around the characters for various effects.
The argument that this makes D&D more like a video game is kind of getting the cart before the horse, I feel. The roles of "defender", "striker," and "controller," have ALWAYS existed in the purview of D&D, they just haven't been given names before in the actual rule book's text. Nearly every electronic role playing game, from Gauntlet and Ultima to Elder Scrolls, Dragon Age and, yes, World of Warcraft, is built on classes and concepts that were originally defined in the realm of pen and paper games (which, in turn, were built from old army vs. army figurine games, lest we forget that Chainmail ever existed). I feel that all of the arguments against 4th edition come from people who are either strongly resistant to change - an understandable position, given that such games really are an investment over time - or are unwilling to put their own thought and creativity into characters and story, preferring to let the game's own rules or mechanics aid them in the fleshing out process.
3.5 edition D&D is like ordering a meal at any chain restaurant: full of interesting choices, but until you learn how to properly special order your meal, you're bound to get a lot of toppings you don't really like at first. 4th edition is like Mexican food: the same basic ingredients, but nearly infinite permutations based on one's imagination. I enjoy the former, but myself, I preferred the latter.
See what you and your players prefer more, go roll some dice and I hope you have fun =)
