The larger problem is that some people are unable to enjoy genre slop for what it is. Fallout 1 grew from adventures with time travelling and dinosaurs and didn't really "grow" past that. Fundamentally, the whole game is about saving your village by getting a practically magical item that fixes everything along with defeating an evil sorcerer hellbent on conquering the world with the help of a knightly order. There's nothing wrong with it, too: you can enjoy things that do not have a real message behind them and just enjoy the adventure, which *is* the message here. However, there's a tendency to try to present slop as deeply compelling because people feel lacking if they don't fill themselves with perfect 10/10 philosophical masterpieces every time every day.
So you have this thing with people who have not really played either genre slop or 10/10 philosophical masterpieces, so they elevate Fallout 1 to this SCARY DESOLATE GUT-WRENCHING EXPERIENCE and then they watch a video essay on Fallout 2 which is actually closer to Fallout 1 than anything else and are surprised that it has more wacky shit by account of just having more to do than its predecessor. If anything, it's more serious on average: now there are actual political structures and groups which coordinate according to their interests (getting to eat, flooding the market with cheap drugs, avoiding irradiation from a nearby NPP, getting a cushy NCR senator seat). NV expanded on it, but funnily enough it is also less serious: compare the Vault City-NCR-New Reno quagmire to ancap robot armies-NCR-Rome LARPers or laidback yet still lurking FO2 Brotherhood to the Mojave chapter. The big takeaway thing is still not really there, because adventure is still the message. The biggest thing there is is "hubris doesn't get you anywhere" considering how this tribal guy can dismantle the US govt, several crime families and Mr. Bishop's wife and daughter by just not fucking around.