Okay, I didn't read through all the comments, but I have to respond to the OP.
First of all, it's in the RPG section. If you don't like RPGs and you bought it anyway, tough luck.
Second, if you do an internet search of "fallout pc review", you can learn a lot about what the game is like and whether it's something you're interested it. I do this for every game I consider buying.
Third, you can go on youtube and search "fallout gameplay", and find plenty of videos that literally SHOW you what the game is like.
So if you bought the game and it wasn't quite what you expected, don't give it a bad rating - it's your own fault for not doing your research. It's not a difficult process, and it doesn't take a genius to figure it out.
-Gammix

I could definitely understand someone not liking the original Fallout games in comparison to the new entry. That being said Fallout 3 isn't my favorite game, as I think it's one of the most boring things ever made, but it is far more accessible and this alone makes it more enjoyable for some. Fallout's clunky interface and dated mechanics might prevent people from getting into a really interesting game. This problem is found in Planescape Torment, another great Black Isle game. A lot of Black Isle games, barring really the Icewind Dale Series, have this issue. Maybe poor research on the game is at its root, but Fallout is definitely not perfect and hasn't aged extremely well. Troika's fantastic game, Arcanum, suffers from a lot of similar issues because of its reliance on a dated interface.

As for Crysis, it's one of the better shooters that I've played recently.

I would buy you a beer but you're only 15. + rep.
As for Crysis, meh. I had better gunplay in a little gem of a game called AVP2 to be honest. Both involved teh alienz but AVP2 had class added to it also. See, graphics orgy and good reviews from IGN (who I don't trust with a nickel) doesn't mean a good game and that seems to be the consensus here. All naysayers need to vacate the forums as this is about Good Old Games, not Mediocre New Games. Would be funny if a spinoff company called MNG came about though, I'd get a free laugh at it.
Yes I'm being sarcastic about naysayers leaving the forums, internet doesn't allow the finesse of speech to spill through :)

Fallout did not age perfectly, though. It is still a good RPG IMO - a prowess ten years later - but the controls make the game very clumsy. I have no fun playing it anymore.
Maybe it is because I finished both 3 times, though.
I'd like to play Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 with Fallout Tactics control :p

Ummm, what? The ghouls in Fallout 1 were for the most part shambling monstrosities that stood around in groups doing nothing outside and at the slightest provocation would shamble up to you and hit you with their bare fists. The Fallout 3 ghouls are reasonable, if a little bigoted people who are more than happy to help you. I don't understand.
Oh, and for the record, I had a long speech prepared stating my problems with Fallout 3 (most of it focused on the clunky, unresponsive controls), so it's not like I'm saying that's better than the first two.

I love Fallout 3 and have had a great time playing it, but it does lack a lot of the depth and variety of the originals. I just think they had better quests and more interesting things to do.
Fallout 2 was the first I ever played in the series and some moments from various characters that have stuck with me are (it's been a while so my recollection may be a little off);
Getting hitched in a lesbian shotgun wedding.
Whoring myself out for caps.
Becoming heavyweight champion of New Reno and having my ear bit off in the process.
Working for a mob family, sleeping with the Don's wife and robbing them blind straight after.
Being hired to commit a murder but I need to make it look like an accident.
Harold!
Fallout 3 does have some kick-ass moments. The Tranquillity Lane quest has always been a personal favourite (although I wish you had more freedom of choice on how to complete it) and I think Moira Brown is a great character. (Her constant, perky optimism and goody two-shoes attitude is what finally drove me to arm that God damn bomb. I also laughed my arse off when I solved the survival guide quest the first time the bad karma way.)
But on the whole, a lot of Fallout 3's quests just seem shallow and linear in comparison to the originals. All I seemed to ever need to do was run around various locations and kill everything until I found whatever the hell the NPC sent me to go and fetch.

Fallout 1+2 and Fallout 3 + NV are both RPGs, in the same universe, but are very different game, and I understand 100% people liking one more than the later, or loving one and not liking the other.

It is like comparing, say, Pride of Nations and Victoria. Same universe (Victorian), same sort of game (Grand Strategy), but completely different games.

People calling Fallout 3 fans "stupid", superficial or whatever, believing they are superior because they play "smarter" games, are just incredibly childish.

"I played and finished Wasteland. If you like Fallout 1 or Fallout 2 and never played Wasteland, you are worthless graphic whores"

fallout 3 isnt ment to play as a shooter i think.

qft.

Although I actually like how Wasteland looks and am sort of disappointed that the Fallout games were never that colorful.

I actually couldn't really get into the first two Fallout games for months after buying them here. It has a big learning curve and not till you orientate yourself to its world and find where your going that you get into it. After that its silicon crack.

I can see that more with FO2 (I didn't like 2 much. It felt like 1 with a lot of cruft added), but FO1 is a fairly short (15 hours or so) and straightforward game.