go figure. crysis, far cry 2 or the newer nfs games are also rated high. does that make them good? hell no, they are mediocre at best. people already forgot about those but guess what? although the original fallouts were made in ~98 a lot of people still buy and play them.
Conclusion: If gamespot or any other site rates a game with 9-10, does not make it an epic game.

Crysis was a good game I don't know what you are talking about. Crysis had some awesome gun battles and it even made me like the aliens near the end during the Carrier Standoff. The only real complaint about Crysis is that they never optimized the damn thing something they kind of fixed with the expasion Warhead.

I think there's just some misscommunication.
Yes. Crysis had some awesome gun battles.
Yes, it didn't make me physically ill to play Crysis.
But just because a game isn't horrible, doesn't make it good. A game can have awesome aspects but still be mediocre. It was passable. It was "alright". But it didn't move people. It didn't inspire them. It looked pretty and was fun to play then and there, but it didn't actually add anything.
In 5 years time, people will only remember Crysis as "that game", the one that "looked good for it's time". But I have a hard time seeing anyone going "Man. Crysis was such a classic. I played it over and over and over again and still found something new in it.".
In 5 years time, people will still be talking about the original Fallout series. People will still be wanting a piece of it and that loyal core of followers will still twist the heads of people into buying more and more.
I don't think making a classic isometric turn-based (and even 2D) game RPG in this day and age would be financial suicide in any way. First of all the production would be cheaper. Second it'd build a reputation of quality - if done well - for future installments. Third, it could easily form a crowd of dedicated cultists coming back for more again and again. Fourth, it'd be like running a marathon, compared to the drug-addled sprinting sessions of most other game developers.
Look at 4x games from Firaxis or Stardock. Huge crowd there, eh? Big blockbuster titles all the time, eh? No. But there's a niche market that they're exploiting and they seem (especially in Stardock's case) to be doing very well for themselves. There's an increasing indie market expanding and much of what they do is low-grade - why? Because they're doing something ORIGINAL, be it in RPGs telling a story or some minature conceptual mind-bogglingly simple-but-awesome game.
There's a market there. I just wish to god someone would take up the torch and start building in it.

So did the haf life series, area 51, duke nukem, doom, quake and any other FPS's out there.
Except graphics i didnt enjoy the game one bit. Nothing original was introduced in the genre and to be honest i hated the storyline...

Oblivion - Game of the Year. I rest my point. Being the "Game of the Year" means nothing.
Yes, it's all about how Bethesda ruined the game.

A bit like Kult: Heretic Kingdoms? Face it, the next isometric rpg thing that comes out will suck, because you don't look at it with your retro goggles.

Ok, this is redicilous. If you don't want to have your opinion bashed that the older games are superior on a forum named Good OLD Games.com, then go over to IGN.com and annoy the shit out of them.
I'm serious, everyone who is saying we only like games because they are old are spewing a bunch of BS, I'm 15, I played Fallout 3 BEFORE the original Fallouts, in retrospect, Fallout 3 sucked.

sir, you have my respect.

Say what?
If the game is good, it's GOOD, no retro goggles or rose-tint glasses needed.
Fallout and Fallout 2 are good games, period.
Fallout 3 just plain sucked if compared to them.

Why would I need retro goggles? As I said, I played Fallout and Fallout 2 after playing "Fallout" 3. Fallout and Fallout 2 were great.
Second, isometric doesn't mean that the graphics will suck. It's kinda like someone going into Musée du Louvre and go "OMG THESE GRAPHICS SUCK!" when seeing the Mona Lisa.

Oh really? The most recently released turn-based isometric RPG I played was Eschalon: Book 1 which was released Q4 2007, and I must say I quite enjoyed it. It also did well enough financially that a sequel is in the works and is scheduled for release sometime during Q1 2010, and I'll definitely be buying it based on my experience with the first installment. So there's not really any need to speculate about whether isometric turn-based RPGs are still viable, and moreover an enjoyable games; evidence that they are is readily available for all to see.

Isometric is to RPG's as extacy is to sex.
Just throwing that out there.

Jeez... One guy doesn't like FO1 and Fo2 and now it's a 7 page thread.
You guys are like Star Trek fans.

Talking about fallout 3 on an old-style fallout message board always unleashes something akin to what you'd hear if you popped a balloon beside a sleeping baby's head