I believe the fanyboy's logic (or at least NMA's) is that FO1 "set the stage" for the whole franchise and everything that happens in the series is thanks to it. So FO2 and FNV's improvements are all because of FO1's existence. FO3 and FO4 are from Bethesda and don't have the "original vision" of Black Isle so they're supposedly not true to the spirit and thus are allowed to get more hate.
As a guy who got into the franchise through Fallout: New Vegas, I don't have that kind of nostalgia for the other games. Fallout 3, I see as a fun little distraction, it doesn't have FNV's intellectual approach, but it still is tons of fun. Fallout 1 and 2, however, are supposed to have better writing according to the fans, and yet the villains and the story arcs are so basic that I can't help but be disappointed. I came into Fallout after listening to Caesar talk about how the NCR's democracy doesn't work in a wasteland and why he made the Legion the way it was, and I expected all the games to have that kind of writing cred behind it. They didn't.
That, and many of the improvements for New Vegas actually came from Fallout 3 and people's reaction towards it. FO3 normies bitched about how the Enclave was unjoinable and how you were railroaded into fighting for the Brotherhood of Steel, so New Vegas gave you several different factions to join as well as an Enclave force to recruit. Normies whined that you can't use iron sights in Fallout 3, so they gave you iron sights in New Vegas. But note how such improvements only came in the wake of Fallout 3. FO1 and 2 had no such complexity; at most, you can explain that the Master started with good intentions, but by the time you meet him, he's an incomprehensible wreck, whereas FO2's Enclave is just "FASCIST MAN BAD" with a direct slap towards right-wingers, especially with how right-wingers in the NCR are practically painted with the same brush as the evil Enclave:
"Shaken by the assassination of Vice-President Carlson, right-wing elements seize control of the Congress and set the New California Republic on a path to military rule. Eventually the survivors of the Enclave found a new home in the ranks of the NCR."
Whereas Fallout New Vegas allowed you to look at fascism and corporatism through a different lens other than the "FASCIST/CAPITALIST MAN BAD" approach that other works usually do. It asked the question "can fascism/corporatism be a viable choice for the wasteland?" and allowed the player to answer that question, by giving the fascists, the democracy, and the corporate state their share of benefits and flaws.
So yeah, that's why I'm not impressed with FO1 and FO2's writing, especially since it's all just slapping Cold War America in the face without allowing both sides the time of day.
It's funny how they say they just want Bethesda to make a deep Fallout game with good writing and they'll be satisfied because I don't believe it. Bethesda by some miracle could create a Fallout game with NV's writing and I know they'd still hate it with the justification that "They probably just stole fanfics and mods to create this game, they're too incompetent to have made this legit."
The same people who mock Bethesda for bad writing are the same crowd who thought Outer Worlds was a deep and engrossing story despite it just being "CAPITALISM IS BAD" for 20 hours. This is why I don't respect Obsidian fans at all. Yes, KOTOR 2 is excellent, Fallout New Vegas is excellent, but they over-bash games like Fallouts 3 and 4 while giving bad Obsidian stories like Outer Worlds a pass and even praise that they doesn't deserve.
The closest to deep the Fallout franchise has come was Vegas, but it really isn't explored in the base game. The DLCs raise questions but don't really make any provocative statements. 1 will always have the Master, which actually was wrong but complex enough for you to walk away understanding and sympathizing with Gray before he suicides.
Not even. Caesar from FNV utterly CRUSHES the Master in terms of magnificent bastardry and moral justifications. The Master is just some nut who decides to neck himself the moment he realizes his mutants are sterile. You know, despite the fact that he HAS a human cult that can breed and raise human cattle for him to use as servants and potential recruits for the Super Mutant army? Instead of making a minor alteration to his plan when he discovers it has a flaw, he commits suicide. Whereas when Caesar failed in his first attempt to conquer the Mojave, he changed his plans from outright charging in to sabotage and negotiation with local factions. It shows that Caesar has adaptability, while the Master does not.
As much as people like to talk about Fallout's themes, they've been lacking in depth since the beginning. 2 had new civilizations and shit but the war was some weird ass neo-nazi esque literally whos getting bodied by some smartass tribal and his gang of odd-looking characters more by coincidence than some built up meaningful conflict. I guess you could count the chance encounters and potential disruptment of their foreign ops but eh. Pretty weak.
Yes, it is pretty weak. FNV had better themes between democracy, totalitarianism, and corporatism, while FO 1 and 2 were as basic as FO3 was, except FO3 had Malcolm McDowell who did a great job as the Enclave President John Henry Eden in Enclave Radio. So even though the plot was basic, at least the gameplay and music were good, and Eden was a blast listening to. And of course, New Vegas topped that with Caesar on the villain side and Radio New Vegas on the music side.
Underrail feels a lot more like what people think Fallout is to me, but that's just me.
To me, Fallout should be more like FNV and KOTOR. Give the player choices and give them the chance to join one side or another.