The hype is so big, reviews like these are bound to happen.
I think it's important to manage expectations.
Graphically, what we've seen so far is okay, but not breathtaking. I'm not too find of the highly colorful palette and character design i've seen so far, and I'm expecting the gameplay to be nearly identical to FO3 and New Vegas, with a few tweaks here and there to give it a new vibe. I'm expecting it's share of bugs too, since open world Bethesda would not be complete without them.
As for the story/setting, I like the premise and the flashback, but I have a feeling it'll be the best part of the game from a lore perspective... Bethesda games aren't always that good in terms of main storyline, and I'm hoping side quests will be more like FO3 than Skyrim. I dunno why, but to me FO3 managed to make me care about NPCs and what I had to accomplish, whereas the usual Bethsda quest often feel like filler grind questing.
Hopefully the reviewer is wrong in his assertion that quests are booring and the game lacks a sense of direction, because one of the thing I loved about Fallout versus TES was precisely that personality. It felt like an open world where locations were memorable, characters were interesting and such... Whereas in Skyrim, it feels like the scope of the game means repeat NPCs with nothing interesting to say and such.
Then again, the guy in the review apparently played a short amount of time, perhaps as low as 20 hours... Meaning he probably just scratched the surface.
In the end though, I'm mostly waiting for the mods anyway... Vanilla Bethesda games are always a little rought around the edges until "fixed" with hundred of mods.
I personally expect a somewhat meh looking game filled with glitches and that reuses most of the stuff from F03, but that grows with time and mods into one of the best post-apocalyptic games there is.