The last time I did that, I was 8 years old and the Nintendo game I bought was one of the worst games I've ever played.
I learned my lesson.

We're not in the 90s anymore and the game clearly labels itself "Arcade Hack n' Slash", with no "OMG GRAPHIX" in the description. Nowadays you state a bogus description for a game as a dev and the internet community makes sure you're screwed.
While I see your point, I have a hard time getting all this anti-evolution thing people throw at FO3. The franchise changed perspectives and many more people than just fans of the originals were pleased. While there's nothing wrong with staying true to a formula, I really think franchises, stagnate if they stay the same with little to no improvements. Just like in COD's case. Tech is not enough to make a game feel fresh unless it has been like 6 years at least.

In the case of Sacred 3 and games nowadays, I don't think the problem is people -not- reading the descriptions, I think the problem is people's sense of entitlement that has grown to gargantuan proportions.
I don't believe people became fundamentally more stupid, it's just that internet access has become more widespread so the amount of noise from people who would not have known how to get online 20 years ago is more noticeable nowadays, hence more unjustified complaining and whining.

I didn't think that FO3 was that bad, but taking a game that was in 3rd person turn based and switching it into something that was essentially first person and real time was a bit of a stretch. The fact that they added a bolted on turn based mode just added insult to injury.

There's nothing wrong with evolution, but such huge changes really need to be dealt with mindfully. I think that FO:NV would have been much better received than FO3, just because the rest of the game sticks closer to the previous games in terms of the role play aspects.

Descriptions are often little more than marketing drivel, so I can understand not paying attention to them. Read the rude comments instead. It can be painful, but it tells the story.

Look at this BS: Claims it's a remake of a great game, is just a port from mobile
http://store.steampowered.com/app/287340/

There were gamer who were awfully entitled even during the Sega vs Nintendo days, but like you later mentioned, the not so big popularity of the internet back then made them be almost, if not, non existent to the gaming community.
What I find it saddening is when I find one of those "hard core" wannabes who thinks hi opinion and wishes are the universal views of the community. I tired having a conversation about games with one of those once. The amount of stupidity after 5 minutes was outrageous. We talked 5 minutes, mostly him. I don't think he omitted any of the recent extremely mainstream in gaming and his opinion about them was that the should all be fixed according to what he is demanding. When he reached the Mass Effect 3 ending, shit hit the fan. I stopped the conversation. It was like having a conversation with a broken copy & paste internet troll. His opinion were not even his, yet his entitlement was clearly there.
FO: NW had FO3 as inspiration and could easily learn from its predecessor. It's just a more subtle way the game evolved. As far as these 2 go, most people I talk to about games on a regular basis enjoyed NW more than 3. I haven't played either yet.
Event he graphics looked like a mobile game. The tried to sugar coat their way out. But still, I think people who just buy games without checking anything about them should not complain. Yes, that surprise factor of discovering a game you really like is awesome, but they know the risks they're talking by basically buying something blindfolded.

To be honest, official game descriptions are rather low on the list of sources of information I would check for a game, mainly because they are designed first and foremost to sell the game, giving you accurate information about that game is a much lower priority for them, so I seldom bother with them.