I voted for 2. Of 1 and 2, there was just a lot of improvements I liked over the first one; even if it did overall feel a bit rushed (and even if most of the "maturity" still consisted of a 13-yr-old's definition of the term.
)
You can never go back home again, though. I doubt I'm the first person to make this connection - but I think the Fallout series is really very much like the progression of the Mad Max films. The first one was sort of this small original outing that happened with just the right alignment of stars and talent to make it a lasting classic. It did well enough that they decided to make a second one; which was more refined than the original but also lacked some of it's unique character. Then, some time later, they decided to try and "recapture the magic" with a bigger budget and modern technology, and take a small cult classic and to try and turn it into something of an even grander scale. While perfectly fine in it's own right, Beyond Thunderdome never had a chance of being hailed by the original fans for all of the same properties as the first two movies. That's an inherent risk you take when you take a cult classic and try to broaden it's appeal to a wider audience.
They're working on a Mad Max 4 - or there's at least rumours of it. Last word I had, Miller was thinking of making it a 3D animated movie (which makes sense considering he's also done Happy Feet and Babe the Pig.) That's going to have the benefit of the same director throughout; and it's still going to be no Road Warrior.
It's the same thing with the Fallout series. You could never take a cult classic and make it into something for popular consumption without at the same time losing a majority of what made it such a classic in the first place. Frankly, I still wonder at this constant obsession with remakes and sequels anyway. I mean, it's probably only a matter of time before we see "Citizen Kane 2 - Rosebud's Revenge..."