The complaints against 4th ed. not feeling like D&D are numerous amongst the net, same in number probably with the video-game analogies.
I wouldn't say this argument is entirely dismissable but is mainly made by fanboys screaming.
The general argument against this 'feeling' is to say ignore the game or take the system as a stand-alone different entity. However this is no argument against the 'feelings' at all.
I think the video-game balance, rather ironically, is a complaint born from the largest complaint of 3.5. This is game balance. People say that 4th ed. over-stepped the mark to making all the classes so balanced as to become very, very, similiar. They see this as an attempt to make a video-game RPG-esque system of balance. This then goes onto contribute to what people feel is cheating them from D&D feelings, a kind of elitist pen and paper world.
I don't think the guys on the developmental team of 4th edition have responded to these backlashes well. An argument I've read from them is that "3.5 had expanded far too much in sourcebooks and splat to the point a new edition had to be made...well so be it we did make one." (I'm paraphrasing heavily here)
I really don't want to retread the arguments of 4th edition again. We've all done it at least once. I dislike it quite a bit but much like Winston Churchill said of Democracy, "It's a bad system but it's the best one we have right now" by that I mean that their will never be this Holy Grail of gaming systems and that you simply have to choose to love a system inspite of what flaws it may have. The arguments arise when people protect their chosen system whilst ignoring or rolling in it's flaws.
