Zeraph

Yeah, I play 3.5, pathfinder, and 4e.

4e is....balanced like a video game and it ends up lending that feel to it. Your group needs to try extra hard to get the same level of immersion and roleplay.

The other thing is there is simply less options. It feels again a bit like a video game in that, 1 ranger isn't going to be much different than another. Whereas in 3.5 or PF I could play the same campaign and character build and come out with a totally different experience.

One other criticism is that the early monster manuals gave monsters too many hps and not enough attack power so combat tended to take longer than 3.5/PF which was one thing they were trying to improve on. They are making headway though with the new MM3.

And finally, the last major criticism is that they are so many damn conditions now! Even right from the get go at level one. In DnD at least you had an easier time of avoiding so much book upkeep if you didn't feel like it.

By conditions (in case you don't know) I mean like slow, stun, penalties to attack, etc. Since everyone and their grandmother now applies conditional modifies in combat to keep track of it all you need to use plastic milk jug rings with different colors or have really really good memory I suppose.
sub paragraph: milk rings to put on the minis. Which is really another criticism, its a lot more neccessary with how all the powers have shapes and such that you use a grid with minis. 3.5/PF its easier to play if you don't want to use a grid with minis.

PS one thing I LOVE/hate (more love) about 4e though is the online character builder. And usually only like one member needs to pay the small monthly fee (like $5?) and you can share the account.