My initial introduction to D&D was 3.0, though that was quickly replaced with 3.5. Of my usual group I was the only one who was really keen to try 4e when it came out, though we went to some showcase games for the core books. Since then I've played a few games, some long running IRL and in each I felt like I was missing the point. The majority of D&D games I play, though, are pathfinder (a sort of 3.75 version of D&D) which is a lor more streamlined that 3.5 and - generally - less broken.
I want to say now that as with all games, it really depends on how you roleplay your character and your DM's strengths and weaknesses that define the quality of a game. BUT.
4e, for me, was mechanically not much fun. It was useful having such a tactical focus to a game (because until then we'd never really bothered with tactical maps) and it is certainly much more forgiving for the DM in terms of encounter building. However, I find it really detractsfrom the out of combat game, which seems to have devolved into skill challenges or buying loot. Characters are much more limited in their utility abilities (casters especially) and this takes the focus away from that side of the game, which is a bad thing in my mind.
It's not that you *can't* do out of combat stuff, it's that the game isn't focussed that way and a lot of people lose sight of it because of that.
Not that Pathfinder is also combat oriented, that's kind of the point of the game, but I feel that you'll be judged much less by the party if you aren't optimised for combat. The point of the god-wizard idea is that you really need to know what spells you need for situation X, Y and Z and be totally prepared for them, not an easy feat.
In terms of wizards, I find that they really suffer in the early game in 4e, what with their low attack rolls and comparitively weak abilities, so I don't see how they're different from any other iterations wizards.
Lately I've dabbled in AD&D a bit too, and after the 3.5 I find it really hard to get my head around. All of it seems so open to misinterpretation and ambiguous situations which are ok provided your players aren't the type to bitch and moan if the DM declares something. And let's face it, a lot of players are.
Long post, I know, so here's a succint conclusion:
Each iteration of D&D has made the rules more strict and clear, I find that this allows people to DM or be a player whenever they want, everything is a bit more accessible. But it does mean that a lot of the flexibility is lost in terms of style. Players develop this idea of the game that they will defend aggressively if they feel that their character isn't as powerful as they expected, of if they have an ability that doesn't affect a monster they way they think it should, based on the rules.
