I hated it on release, but years later returned after playing NV and these were selling points:

1. I realized going searching for Liam Neeson was just a reason to start exploring the world.

2. At the beginning the player is powerless and the only option is to run  until you find non hostile area.

3. Looting is fun and rewarding at the beginning.

4. Native controller support on PC is awesome, I can't stand playing long RPGs with kb and mouse, it was main reason I hated it at first, kb and mouse controls are too clunky in this game.

I even like F3 better than NV now because F3 you can do whatever but in NV many quests are restricted by fractions.

Fallout 3 was okay, New Vegas was great and felt like the game F3 was always meant to be. Looking forward to Fallout 4 but I'm also slightly skeptical and trying to keep my expectations at a fair level.

Its atmosphere is great. Combat doesn't have to be good, just fun.

I will say this though.

Just as there are people who open a book and only see words, there are also people who have a hard time imagining themselves as part of the game.

If you play Fallout and New Vegas and don't fall into the atmosphere of the game, you will never understand and enjoy it, that's the kind of game that you have more fun exploring with a open mind then just following a story.
The only thing that sometimes make it less enjoyable its the bugs, the one i hate more than any other is be stuck in some wall or on the ground with nothing you can do about it.

The story itself was meh, but i loved the setting very much. I will buy F4 after it's patched and playtested in the steam summer sale :p.

New Vegas was indeed much better. It was a more lived in world. And that Yes-man at the end was awesome.

You tried too hard not to like it. Your criticism sounds pety to me.

I will explain. "bad writing" What the hell is that even supposed to mean? Can you not understand what people are saying? Its not supposed to be a book. Its supposed to be a game.

The dialog is bad, is just more of the same criticism you already gave. Its also supposed to be the portrayal of the earlier decades of the last century.

The game is ugly. A good game doesnt need great graphics. This is a shallow criticism. I did think the graphics were nice, so meh... i think you forget its a sandbox, not a corridor shooter. Resources are best spent on other areas.

Combat... well they made it an FPS, of course it wasnt going to be anything great. World full of empty... its called a wasteland. Its what they are trying to portray.

What is good about it? The portrayal of a post apocalyptic world in an early last century vibe. Something people feared during the cold war and this is a window to what could have been and how you would live in such a world. If the concept does not appeal to you, then you don't enjoy history.

Quite honestly, you clearly don't want to like it. I just dont have enough context to know why.

Of course theres always the possibility that you don't like these kind of games, but that is a probem with you and not the game.

"The combat is bad" is not something I understand.

My guess would be that people are running in like they're playing Halo and wondering why they aren't cutting everyone down immediately. Fallout isn't supposed to be twitch-based, it's not supposed to be CoD. What we get instead is a game where you can use intelligence and planning to kill almost anything. You've got to use cover, you've got to use positioning, you've got to try to flank your opponents if they're strong, you've got to switch weapons based on the situation. I love that. There isn't enough of that out there. One of my very favorite things about Fallout is that I can take on enemies much stronger than I am, as long as I use my brains. Combat in Fallout is one of my favorite things in gaming.

I think a lot of people approach Fallout like they're playing a typical shooter and it's not, and they're like, "why aren't I an instant badass like in other games?" Personally, I like that.

While I'm firmly in the camp that 3 is not as good as 2 or New Vegas, and am with you on the other points, I have to strongly disagree with the bolded. 3 was the game that most pushed the "50's future" motif, and it did so quite well.

And it did a good job of wringing humor from that concept, more so than any of its predecessors did. Even aside from that, it had many humorous moments; off the top of my head, there's the entire setup of the Republic of Dave, the bitterness of Three-Dog's understudy, just about everything revolving around the Naughty Nightwear, etc. It certainly had more humor than 1, which was largely not a funny game.

God, you're terrible at this.

1. I didn't say bad writting and bad dialoge, I said bad dialoge and cheesy voice acting.

2. The combat was crazy clunky. The aiming was done so poorly that the V.A.T.S. system was practically a must have. Though, from what I hear that was mostly on consoles, as it worked better with a mouse.

3. The world is really empty...just because it was done on purpose doesn't mean it's good. Plus, as someone else mentioned, the game takes place 200 years after the war. As the same person said, it's more likely that it was so empty due to technical limitations rather than a design choice.

4. "if the concept doesn't appeal to you, then you don't enjoy history" What? First off, I'm actually quite a big history buff. Secondly, and this isn't a criticism of the game, you do realize Fallout isn't actually based on history correct?

5. Why on earth wouldn't I want to like the game? I put quite a lot of time into it, and it's something most of my friends really enjoyed. Like I said, you'r awful at this.