I don't think so. Wasn't Van Buren's main plot his idea? I remember him being the initial project lead/director for it and when he left for Obsidian they put Sawyer there and he eventually left for Obsidian as well. And that plot being that there's a virus and the villain wants to utilize that virus to get AI to nuke the earth all over again? Well, at least significant regions of it.
He definitely was major in writing Ulysses and the plot of Lonesome Road, which again treads similar grounds. Hell, it's technically "harder" (saying that in quotes because you need to have high speech and high rep with Legion or NCR or you have to fight Ulysses and sacrifice ED-E) to stop the nukes he wants to use to cut the metaphorical throats of the Legion and NCR. Sure, that's not an apocalypse but that's a way to turn back progress on their advancements towards creating and maintaining a larger civilization under their ideology and rule.
He might not like the reasoning for it but I doubt he's going to mind the fate of it. I think he's always been down to reset the progress in Fallout because eventually, it'd become less about the apocalyptic wasteland and it's obvious. I too enjoy the more realistic notion of how people rebuild afterwards but eventually it wouldn't be the same type of game or lend itself to be much of what you'd want in a Fallout game. I also think this is a factor in why Bethesda's Fallouts, regardless of what year they're set in, maintain that environment that the bombs might not have fallen more than 100 years ago. They don't want to push themselves out of the apocalypse so they can make more games. They make their moves to keep it apocalyptic a bit more in your face with just not even bothering to cover
why people haven't rebuilt like you'd expect after 4+ generations.
I expect all of this from him to be honest. He seems well adjusted and knows how to approach things in a good manner. I'm not shocked he also approaches the distaste of the show from fans in a tasteful way. I feel like many of the older iconic figureheads of Fallout approach the fans this way and it's why Pete Hines irked me so much
He also probably just genuinely feels like he says he does in this article. He's expressed similar things before and I don't see why his involvement in Fallout would be any different. If they get emotionally invested in things they are only ever contractors for, they'll find themselves with an unnecessarily large amount of disappointment.
I'd say this is a level of emotional maturity alongside professionalism. He makes games, he doesn't just play them and go work a different job. He wants to create games, yes, but he's also very aware of the industry he is in and the possibilities that can be taken away from him with something he's created. He legally does not own that stuff.
Fixed
“I'm not going to go anywhere near the argument of who is responsible for Fallout's greatness, except to say that Scott Campbell never gets the credit he deserves in all these arguments. He wrote a lot of the original story and came up with a lot of the characters and places as well.”—
Leonard Boyarsky about Scott Campbell
Also, John Gonzalez was a major contributor the New Vegas plot and characters to the point I'd attribute more of the main game to him than Avellone. He wrote Benny, House, Vulpes Inculta, Ricky, Stella, Randall Clark's logs, Yes Man, Victor, Davison, many characters in the Casa Madrid apartments, the Forecaster, Caesar (with contributions from Sawyer), created and designed the Boomer faction, and created Lanius but Avellone wrote Lanius's dialogue. He also created the concepts for the casinos and the Three Families and was the major writer for the central plot of the main game.
I think we ought to not pretend like only a handful of people are the most important developers in this series and start attributing some credit to those who contributed more than we might superficially expect. Tim has often talked about how others contributed so much to the game and I believe Sawyer and Avellone have as well.
Here's how Chris Avellone's takes about the Fallout show go for many fans right now:
1. Chris Avellone says it's not that great or criticizes a lot of the show and validates your take that it's a shit show.
2. Chris Avellone says it's pretty good and praises a lot of the show with some lesser criticisms and validates your take it's a good show.
3. Chris Avellone does #1 or #2 and you were expecting the opposite and now you're going to say well fuck him he's not even actually important to Fallout anyway or he's never actually been a good writer and was carried by others.
4. You're a well adjusted person who is interested in his opinion but won't get emotionally distraught when he disagrees with you or emotionally giddy when he agrees with you. You read what he has to say and take it for what it's worth and don't bellyache or parade his opinion around like a trophy.