I appreciate the desire yo have others share your preferences, but I think if you stepped back and looked at what people are saying it is generally the whole of 4E doesn't appeal to them and this is usually based on playing the game and reading the books (they may have reached different concusions a out certain things but not unreasonable ones ImO). The idea that people would like it if they didn't just make wild assumptins about it due to the role names also seems a bit unfounded here.
I read the books, a played several times. I just don't like it. How many times do I need to keep playing it for people on the other side to accept it isn't for me ( i mean I certainly gave it more tries than other games I disliked). You may not mind the use of roles in 4E, but others feel it is one of the reasons behind their dislike (and I think like any other aspect of the game both sides can make valid points about how much freedom or limitation they place on play). Personally I am not a fan of the way roles are so focused around combat and I don't really agree with the role selection (i never really saw rogues as strikers for example). But that is hardly the only thing about 4e that bugs me.
On this subject of words. I dont know what to say except it isn't our fault if the 4e designers failed to communicate clearly. On the one hand we are told you have to look past the words in 4e and use your imagination, on the other we are told that words are the most important aspect of the game and convey all kinds of flavor information. All I know is I never had these issues in earlier editions of the game.
Trust me, this isn't hate on my part. 4e does what it does, and lots of people like it. I dont hold it against them for trying to make a more focused version of D&D. It just doesn't appeal to me. If the next edition appeals to me I will buy it, if it doesn't I won't. There seems to be this implication behind the 4e hater label that if you don't accept each new edition of D&D and play it, you are somehow closed minded or attempting to be mean. Sorry to rant a bit here, but I just think that is incorrect. I pretty much only play games that interest me. If that happens to be the current edition of D&D, great. If not, that is fine too. If you love 4E, by all means you should play it and want 5e to reflect your preferences. But some peope jus are not satisfied with it....and I don't think you can talk somene into liking it, anymore than you can talk someone into liking a food that they dislike the taste of.
I remember back when 4e came out talking on WotC boards about how the titles of leader, controller, defender and striker were so absolutely generic that they could be applied via alternate definitions for different classes.
Leader, I argued, could be the LEADER of the group... the face man. Hell the leader could be (and often was in our games) the fighter.
The defender then may be the cleric, who boosts all his friends and heals them.
The wizard is a striker, as he does more damage to multiple enemies.
The rogue could be a controller as he is able to maneuver around the battlefield and hit for extra damage in sensitive spots.
When I said this I was immediately rebuffed by the already entrenched 4e supporters who said the class roles could only look one way and operate one way and that my definitions made no sense, wouldn't work and that I should go away now please.
I guess the reason I brought this up is simple, why bother using extra terms to describe how the party is
supposed to work. Why not be satisfied when it simply
does work? If a group is adventuring and realizes they need some extra firepower, or healing, or whatever, can they not adjust? Do they specifically need to be told you
must have one of the following: Leader, Striker, Controller, Defender?
Next, why is the game built that way? Why should you have to have those four groups? A cleric should be helpful but never absolutely necessary. A wizard should be magical and knowledgeable about magic. A fighter should be the tough-man or expert at arms who can take down the enemy. The rogue should be good at helping out the fighter in certain situations while being invaluable in others - namely stealth or trickery. Why create an artificial construct to reinforce their IN BATTLE context only?
Then why play with other people at all? Just play a video game or something. When I get together with friends we actually want EVERYONE to have a good time.
If anything, using teamwork is MORE important in videogames, usually. I can't think of a single RPG where you control more than one character where it isn't vital to keep all characters you control in fit fighting shape.
As far as your actual comment however - DnD is about friendship and teamwork certainly but it shouldn't be mandated by the game. What if you aren't friends with the group? What if ROLE-playing develops and not everyone gets along. What if the party decides to fight one another for whatever reason? What if an encounter ends up being handled by only one person. Why does the game assume you are doing everything in a group. Why does the game assume you have all 4 class types covered in a battle? It is a balancing act that the game expects certain things and if you start leaving the beaten path then the system stops being balanced. And since balance is the chief thing that 4e praises and talks about, when it isn't there it is sorely missed.