TLDR: Thinking of virtual particles as an "analogy" is a trick that makes our brains hurt less when we think about quantum mechanics (and thus is very useful), but it in no way corresponds to an actual real-life distinction between two different kinds of particles. They are two ends of a phenomenon that stretches continuously between the two. So if you say that virtual particles are just an analogy, philosophically you would have to conclude that real particles are also just an analogy. (But I wouldn't say that this is an inaccurate statement.)
There is actually no sharp distinction between "virtual" and "real" particles—they are two ends of a continuum. Looking at the virtual particles page in Wikipedia, it describes a number of ways in which virtual particles differ from real particles. Let me go through these.
A virtual particle does not precisely obey the energy–momentum relation $m^2c^4 = E^2 − p^2c^2.$ Its kinetic energy may not have the usual relationship to velocity–indeed, it can be negative. This is expressed by the phrase off mass shell.
In fact, "real" particles do not obey this relationship exactly, either ... the longer the real particles exist, the closer they need to come to obeying the relationship, so any particle that is around for a long time nearly satisfies it, and thus assuming that it satisfies it exactly is a very good approximation. But unless the particle lives forever, it is only an approximation and not exact.
Virtual particles are also viewed as excitations of the underlying fields, but appear only as forces, not as detectable particles. They are "temporary" in the sense that they appear in calculations, but are not detected as single particles. Thus, in mathematical terms, they never appear as indices to the scattering matrix, which is to say, they never appear as the observable inputs and outputs of the physical process being modelled.
What this says is that in a scattering matrix, any particle that you start out with or end up with is "real", but any particle that is created and then destroyed in the interaction is "virtual". But in real life, a particle coming out of one interaction is going to end up being destroyed in a different one. If it lasts a long time between the two interactions, you call it "real", and if it lasts only a short time, you call it "virtual". But these are two ends of a continuum, for which no exact dividing line exists.
So if you say that virtual particles are just an analogy, then philosophically, wouldn't you also have to conclude that all particles are also an analogy?
It actually is very useful to differentiate between "virtual" particles and "real" particles when thinking about high energy physics, and I don't want to discourage anybody from making this distinction. But this distinction doesn't correspond to any actual sharp distinction in real life.