I don't really have a preference on setting, like whether it is scifi or western or 50s setting. More important is how intriguing the story is, if it has interesting characters, good dialogue, dark humor etc.

For instance, a bowling movie set into 90s? Sounds boring... but I absolutely adore The Big Lebowski.

Or a movie about a robotic cop? Sounds stupid, like some silly 80s TV-series to kids. Yet, Robocop rocks.

Or a movie about some weird dystopian bureaucratic society where a civil servant dreams of a better life? Boooriiing... but Brazil is probably the best movie I've ever seen.

Or two hustlers try to swindle a mafia boss? Sounds cliched and stupid... yet The Sting is also one of the best movies I've ever seen.

A movie about bowling probably would be boring - no matter the decade it's set in.
Thing is: The Big Lebowski is not a movie about bowling.

Yeah, imagine, an 80s movie for adults (which had to be massively cut, to get a "R"-rating for its theatrical release) is more entertaining for adults, than an 80s TV show for kids ever could be.
Mind you: the "stupid and silly" sounding narrative is still the same.

And yet: apparently you watched all the movies mentioned above - despite their silly and/or boring sounding premisses...

;)

The point was that the premise is irrelevant. For instance, whether it is a western or a scifi movie, I could still hate it, love it or be totally indifferent about it. It is the story, characters etc. that make or break the movie (or TV series) for me, not the premise.

You keep talking as if "setting", "premise" and now "genre" were all the same thing, and not three different things.

Wouldn't setting be location and/or date and/or level of technology? (Example, 1900's Midwest)
Premise is a rough sketch of plot (Bank robbery gone wrong, survival, redemption)
And genre encompasses a lot specific elements? (Western: Cowboys & Indians, horses and pistols, large hats, cows, and Clint Eastwood or John Wayne).

yes, setting is time/place, premise is the central concept of a story told very briefly and conciely.

Genre, however is a very nebulous term that depends on how you use it. it comes from Aristole who tried to classify types of stories, and the the name basicly means "type of", it has the same root as the word genus in biological taxonomy (which is also very difficult to nail down). it is often used as a synonym for "style", so "in the style of". The problem is that genre is used very differently depending on how you classify the material - yes, a western is a genre, so is sci-fi. But used just like this, then genre becomes very close to setting. However, other genres could be for example comedy, horror, romance. So you can have a westen-horroror westrn-comedy, classifed based on both setting and content. You can have granular genres, for example 50's western or spaghetti western - both are westerns, but formalistic they are very different. or you can have genre based on audiences, a childrens western, a teen western, a adult western and so on. Genre is not a clear concept

All equally irrelevant to whether I will like the movie/TV series or not.

Yup.
I said before that I liked it, but I must recognize its a 'dumb' show.
Its fun for the game references and all (soundtrack if you like them, game sounds, game themes..), but Im not expecting anything New Vegas level of existential phylosophy. (Well lets see on Season 2..)

Though Im really expecting they give Ghoul a good character arc.
After the show stablished Ghoul's past and future, If I keep watching it on Season 2, it will mostly (or maybe only) because of his character, as it was in first season.

Not because Max or Lucy are not good characters necessarily, but because Ghoul's past and present search makes him a good and complex character to root for in my opinion.
I think Max was badly written, and Lucy feels weird sometimes, though she played well the 'naive vault dweller coming out to the real world' and that was nice initially
Also, a Plus for Critical Drinker's honesty on letting MauLer and Reaper give opinions contrary to his after he posted his first impressions video. MauLer gives some good points when critizing the show.

Dont we all.

Reaper's video and review of the Fallout TV series... very unflattering. Sounds like we don't have anyone competent in Hollywood anymore.

Anything particularly special about this reviewer?

Off hand, not specifically; Reaper is one of the debaters with The Critical Drinker a few days ago; If i hadn't watched the debate (or not recognized his voice from that debate), i probably wouldn't have given it much attention; Except that it just showed up on my feed. Maybe i should start watching out for his content now.

If it helps any almost everything he talks about in regards to nitpicks he shows on screen. He breaks down everything that doesn't make sense, including the whole plot of season 1.

Apparently, Chris Avellone's opinion is that show's lore is hot mess. If that's his harshest critique, then it's not so bad:D

Considering:

- Its a tv show spawned from a computer game francise. An especially intelligent francise, with deep lore, but still.

- Its on Amazon Prime, who are known to be especially bonkers about their political ideology.

Its really not as awful as one could expect.

For example, Lord of the Rings has an even much deeper lore than Fallout. And boy did it get godawful stinking piles of absolutely nonsenical crap tv shows recently.