The writing in Skyrim is supposed to be better so I actually have high hopes for FO4. It won't compare to NV on writing but if Bethesda learn from their mistakes, it will be a pretty good game. It won't stop fans from BAAAWWWING because they just want another Fallout 2. Well, that's gone and done now. Bethesda now have the rights and they can do what they want with it. Get the hell used to it.
The consensus, even among many Elder Scrolls fans, is that Skyrim is generally better than Oblvion, but may not be as good as Morrowind. This does not mean Skyim's "good" writing, just that it's better than Oblivion. I could go on about the plot holes and inconsistencies in Skyrim myself. We are talking about Elder Scrolls, afterall, which has a long history of being inconsistent and oftentimes contradictory.
And a final note, just because Bethesda owns the franchise now doesn't mean that someone won't complain about it. It's their opinion, and they can say what they want. Get used to that.
Regardless of how bad the story is, Fallout 2 got many things right and thanks to its awesome karma system and consequences for your actions. It's slowly rising up on my Favourite Games rank, even above 3 as the novelty has worn off. I just think it deserves as much criticism as FO3.
All works must be subject to criticism. Fallout 2 is no exception, but this is also why Fallout 2 holds up better than 3. In criticism, one also has to apply critical thinking in several different ways, other than just form or function.
On a constructive level, Fallout 2 supported even it's bad ideas within the context of the game. For example, there's a clear infrastructure even to Arroyo, despite the idea, as you say, that tribals don't really make sense in context with the time period - there's at least a reason and explanation. The game actually explains why even the bad ideas are there.
In Fallout 3, you tend to have to make up reasons yourself. Like your explanation for Talon Company, which isn't really supported by anything in-game.
There really isn't much of an excuse for Talon Company except to be as karmic foes. They were pretty much purposefully made ambiguous just as more cannon fodder to fight. It's right up there with just about everything that Daniel Littlehorn says and does.
It's even very likely that Littlehorn is the go-between for Talon Company and whomever this supposed malignant force trying to keep the Wasteland down.
That, however, doesn't answer who they work for? Littlehorn and Talon Company both say the same thing, but you never hear or are told anything beyond the "good people need to die" bit.
"What if" it's the Enclave? Perhaps the Enclave use Talon Company as a third party "wasteland disposal unit", in need of warm bodies to eliminate the "do-gooders" who interfere with their plans without risking themselves
Then again, "what if" it's the Slavers? Remember, if you're the kind of guy running around giving water to the downtrodden and having Three Dog sing your praises over the radio, then word will spread. That's exactly the kind of legend the Slavers can't have inspiring their captives, that's why they are so big on eradicating the memory of Abraham Lincoln.
The big problem is that these are "What ifs" and there's no deeper investigation allowed. The same "What if" scenarios have to be represented for a great number of other inconsistencies in Fallout 3.
As far as I can tell, Talon Company and the Regulators are pretty much an attempt to mirror the rivalry between the Rangers and the Slavers, as seen in Fallout 2. The problem is that it doesn't go into more detail than that relationship, but there is often more play to even a simple rivalry like that in Fallout 2.
