No. People weren't expecting it to be twice the shooter but to simply live up to the expectations of the genre and it failed. It had none of the atmosphere or narrative of games like Half-Life 2 / Bioshock, it had terrible AI (tanks and helicopter seeing through walls, etc), it performed terribly (and still does on much more recent hardware) and it was incredibly generic, with terrible voice acting, terrible script, cheesy cutscenes, etc. It was hugely hyped and failed to deliver. Hopefully Crysis 2 will refine the formula but I'm not hugely optimistic.
No, I much prefer games like STALKER, which may be rough around the edges but are much more true PC games than the Crysis, which is more comparable with Halo (health regen, cutscenes, voice comm narrative, etc).
Crysis and STALKER are two very different games that were aiming to do very different things, first off.
Secondly, everything you complained about in Crysis is your opinion. As a player of FPS games for like 22 years I thoroughly enjoyed Crysis, which means a lot of other people probably did as well. No, it didn't have a unique world like Bioshock, but it was aiming for realism. No, it wasn't generic, it was just aiming for realism (didn't I just say that?). No, it wasn't any worse in story than 99% of other FPS games... other than the two you mentioned, Half-Life 2 and Bioshock, I can't even think of another recent FPS that does story better and isn't an RPG hybrid.
You mention hype, and that is exactly my point. The game was extremely hyped because of its graphics and when it wasn't the best FPS ever people decided it was horrible. As someone who finds "average" FPS games like Timeshift and Wolfenstein extremely fun, Crysis was way beyond that and very entertaining. It didn't reinvent the wheel like you thought it would, but that doesn't make it a bad game.
This is like Doom 3 all over again.