Absolutely. I've found I have a really hard time with how he writes action as well. I always feel as though he's describing someone playing a video game.
I recently picked up the Way of Kings but found the way he described the action/fantastical elements really jarring. It was like he felt he needed to spell it out rather than let the reader discover it organically. I've been told I need to struggle through though as it's supposedly a great story.
All his magic systems have well defined mechanics and strict rules behind them so it's kind a expected and I feel like somebody who used to play a lot of games see through it more easily. Whatever it's good or bad depend on your own preferences in fantasy.
Personally I see this as a good thing since opposite would be ever repeating contrived coincidence of just-one-another arcane trick rediscovery. Probably these limits on what magic can or cannot do is one of things that make him improve his writing.
"Like a videogame" is an apt description of Sanderson's approach, and not my thing. Even Jack Vance's magic system of memorizing spells, used in his Dying Earth stories and said to have inspired the Dungeons & Dragons RPG system, is more mysterious and mystical than Sanderson's. Which is the way it should be!
At worst it turns your exciting adventure novel into a textbook for arcane effects practitioners.
FWIW, I didn't find it over-explained, but I tend towards systems naturally.
Good "soft" magic is mysterious and often unreliable. It sometimes comes with a price. Main characters often do not understand it and cannot use it, or they misuse it to terrifying or hilarious results (e.g. Cugel in The Eyes of the Overworld).
The supernatural must be unknowable, otherwise it simply turns into the natural.
"A wizard/hacker did it" is simply bad writing.
I perfectly fine with this kind of stuff in something like Discworld because of nature of these books and how I read them, but for epic fantasy with more or less serious themes I expect events to have logic behind them. Sanderson's books still have mysteries, but they just served by the ways other than generic "magic". So there is plenty of things to make theories about during and after reading.
Ultimately, to me, literary fiction is NOT like programming, and it's not as easy to explain what works and what doesn't. Mystery and ambiguity are bad things in code but good in literature.
Which brings me full circle to why I dislike Sanderson's approach :)