For me:
Take this quote and reverse it:
Question: So you want to bring back a lot of iconic elements – but what about team work?
Andy Collins: […Well, what changed is] how we approached class design. In a lot of editions of the game, classes compared to new classes were designed by [first] imagining what could exist in the D&D world, and now I assign the mechanics that make that feel realistic and then I’m done. Well the problem with that is, that you get an interesting simulation of a D&D world but not necessarily a compelling game play experience. A lot of the classes designed in the last 30 years are not interesting, are not compelling either in a fight or maybe out of a fight, but just pale compared to other characters on the table top. Who really wants to play a monk when you can play a rogue or a fighter, who can do all these things - ok, the monk gets to jump and run around a lot but what does he really get to contribute at the table that other characters don’t do better than him. The wizard can fly – so why do you need someone who jumps well?
So whenever we were approaching a new class we had to home in on what makes this guy special and unique within in the game - not just in the world of D&D but, since we’re playing a game, why is this game piece different than another game piece and why do I want to play it instead another game piece. It's got to have a hook (or multiple hooks, preferably) for every class because it’s got to be compelling for people to play it. Not just because it’s got a story – that’s important – but good, compelling mechanics that fit into the team work aspect of gaming.
I play RPGs because it is appealing to create the simulation of being Gimli, or Milamber, or Conan.
And supporting that simulation must be a key priority for a game that will appeal to me.
Andy's comments compare the monk to the fighter and wizard as if they are chess pieces. He concludes that the monk is less appealing than the wizard in way that is not far different than concluding that the knight is less appealing than the rook.
But the appeal for playing a monk does not reside within the game mechanics. If I want to play a monk within a pseudo-fantasy environment, it is because that is the character type that is calling to me at that time. I want to be the guy who jumps and kicks. But, far more than that, I want to be the guy who masters his body and contemplates his place in the multiverse and through all of this achieves a supernatural ability to jump and kick, amongst other things. But the details of the jumping and kicking and everything else is simply a secondary effect of the character.
Andy calls this :"not necessarily a compelling game play experience."
And I know that people are going to try to spin this as me just saying that I have no imagination and I don't need rules for this. blah blah blah
If you think that, then you are missing the point. I agree 100% that I can roleplay a monk using the 4E ruleset. No doubt about it. But, my ability to roleplay is not impacted by the ruleset I choose. And, as Andy states, other editions of the game put imagining the character first. Given the choice between a ruleset that is built with fostering my playstyle in mind, and a ruleset that puts "being the character" as a secondary tier subservient to tabletop miniature equity, why in the world would I choose the latter?
The philosophy that Andy describes for 4E can make good games. And they have achieved that.
The philosophy that Andy describes for prior games can make outstanding RPG experiences, or maybe even better stated, can take the imaginations of quality players and provide synergy for a highly rewarding experience that really doesn't have anything to do with math working.
Make the game about BEING the character first again.