I'm a long time fan of the Fallout series and I really hope this show will be good. But some of the visuals are not filling me with great deal of confidence. Some of it looks like bad cosplay, which is sad, given that I've seen cosplayers do a better job of consume design.

I would say filter bubble more. Some of why this crap started to happen is Hollywood got use to getting more money outside of the US box office. They don't know how to appeal to most of the US then keep getting validated for their decisions by Yesmen.
Now some in Hollywood are being dragged kicking and screaming BACK because the Chinese box office is going away. They are going to have to look at what appeals to the US and India now.
I think many of us want well written closed plot arc shows with casting that fits the story(if based on a book) and setting.

For the ghoul gunslinger, I expect his make-up is cheap because he's a major character with lots of screen-time; there's probably going to be an episode with a hoard of feral ghouls and they'll wear greenscreen masks with an animated "rotted skull" look.

As a main character with long screen time, the mask will without a doubt be very uncomfortable to wear. This can affect an actor's state of mind and their acting, so a compromise is reasonable. One shot stunt extras can afford to be more showy.

Or the ones who are talented can't get hired for one reason or another.

Europe and Asia largely always had better TV shows because they were one or two seasons and that was it. I largely cringe when KDrama's do a second season unless it is fake and Netflix is calling it a second season.

That may just be the case of grass being greener on the other side.

I don't think talent is the thing lacking in modern entertainment these days, it's skill and passion which is needed.

Its more the shows that get shown to an international audience are going to be good (proven to be popular hence the effort to make it international) so you get a biased sample.

Do agree that Jdrama and Kdramas usually only run for one season so if a show has two or more seasons, its usually very good or at least not terrible (likely the equivalent to a US show running over 3 seasons since that is when royalties kick in).

It's genuine life experience, I think. Seems like so many of the creators inhabiting Hollywood are people who have never held a real job, done significant travelling, or generally experienced a world outside whatever university they went to or the Hollywood echo chamber. A lot of our classic movies and shows were made by people who had something, like being war veterans, growing up on a farm or the streets, doing manual labor, escaping harsh governments, or some or all of the above. Even if their work made points you didn't agree with, you could tell they had a perpsective they'd earned instead of had fed to them.

Hey, I fit that description, thankfully I am no artist. However so does Lovecraft, and he made some of the best horror stories ever.

Lovecraft was also a raging racist, and I'm not sure that's the comparison you want to make. Why not Asimov, C. Clarke, or several other finer choices, who don't have baggage?

What does Lovecraft's racism has anything with quality of his work? Martin Heidegger was the best philosopher of the 20th century, I am not gonna deny that just because he was a Nazi supporting piece of shit. I did choose Lovecraft because: 1) I read and I like Lovecraft's work; 2) he fits the description of the post I was responding to, while proving you can make good entertainment/art despite of this. I think Asimov and Clarke don't fit that description from my limited knowledge of their biography; 3) his racial views were almost purely based on ideology and not real life experience similar to the modern creators andysheets1975 was bashing.

To me, it makes no sense to look back at people from earlier times, and then only apply our modern standards to them.
Many people who are seen as racist from today's standing point were not deemed racist at their time (though some of those we deem racist, have been that, ofc).

Take Sir Arthur Conan Doyle for example.
I've seen claims of him being racist, simply because he used "the N-word" in some of his stories.
I beg to differ.

If you look at how and when he used that word, it is pretty clear, that - whenever he used it - he only used it , to "put it in the mouths" of bad guys...the good guys use the word "ne--o" instead.
And yes, of course - nowadays, we see the use of both words as racist...but that was not the case at the lifetime of ACD.

He used these two words deliberately, to hint at the reader, who was a "good" and who was a "bad" actor in his stories.

I don't like the modern "re-evaluating" of old stories, which judges the old content only by modern standards, without taking into account the times in which a story was written, and also without taking into account, that in these times, certain words, terms and expressions, were not deemed as problematic, as they are today.

Look at the progression: N---er, Ne--o, Colored, Black, Person of Color,...

To my best knowledge, "person of color" is today the socially recognized standard to refer to...well..people of color.

But for all we can deduct from that progression above, it may very well be, that sometime in the future, people who look back at our lifetime, will deem everyone a racist, who nowadays uses the term "PoC", in the same way, we deem everyone a racist, who used the N-word, Ne--o, et al, in their lifetimes.

Sry dude, I like Lovecraft, but he was extremely racist even for his time. He wasn't violent in his views, which is one of the few reasons why I tolerate it despite me being on the opposite side of political spectrum. Same thing with Heidegger, he held anti-Semitic views and joined Nazi party for opportunistic reasons while having extramarital affair with his Jewish student Hannah Arendt. His personal ethics were awful.

Since you apparently missed this sentence at your first reading, let me repeat it for you: