In a VERY old piece of literature, Lovejoy (I had to look up the author but the point remains) in The Supposed Primitivism of Rousseau's Discourse on Inequality states that Rousseau was not the person who really created the "noble savage" myth. With that aside, I'm going to answer your question with one word: no.

I focus on the U.S. South, so I can't really speak exactly to how the myth came about beyond that it basically argued that men were inherently corrupted by civilization, but that civilization was still a "less bad" option because not having civilization meant primitive society. I point that out because the premise of the "noble savage" myth can sound like a progressive understanding, but in practice it was actually a dark and disgusting thing.

The noble savage myth basically stated that the lack of "civilization" (which itself is a very problematic term often used by Jacksonians in the United States, Richard Keith Call is the one who comes to mind but he is often central to my research so I'm a bit biased) which indigenous, especially American Indian, societies were structured around (according to Ed Baptist in Creating an Old South, which is my favorite piece of scholarly literature on Southern conceptualization of how society ought to work) didn't build cities or practice economics in the way in which Southerners conceptualized. Basically, the belief was that because indigenous peoples (I and authors like Andrew Frank and others argue this conception is inextricably linked to their brownness but that their color alone was not the sole justification) weren't living the right way - they weren't practicing extractive economies and weren't living in cities (choosing instead to often live in smaller communities), bound by differing structures of life (for further reading on this, I recommend Claudo Saunt's A New Order of Things as it talks about kinship and clan hierarchies while also dismissing a lot of misconceptions about native land usage. There is a lot of newer scholarship about these things, particularly the latter point, but I think Saunt is one of the more impressive pieces and one of the few pieces of literature about American Indians from its day that isn't somehow problematic by today's standards).

The thing about the noble savage point that is most sticky is the juxtaposition of those words. A member of my thesis committee once said to me that "for years, Americans have described the American Indians as noble savages. They emphasized the noble or the savage part whenever it best fit their present situation." That has stuck with me to this day, and I think it helps explain how this myth is a bit harder to pin down than others. There was a lot of fascination with American Indians, especially after the turn of the 20th Century when many white Americans, particularly folks living East of the Mississippi, believed that indigenous cultures were destined to be wiped out by American hegemonic culture (of course, this was when we were abducting Native children and forcing them to abandon their heritage in favor of American cultures and we believed that there weren't any tribes outside of reservations. Americans were FASCINATED - and terrified - when they confirmed the existence of Seminoles still around in Big Cypress).

As for whether or not societies in the New World were perfect before 1492? Absolutely not. It sucked to be alive in 1492, no matter who you were. I wouldn't even want to be the King of Spain in 1492. There was no AC! Hierarchies were still complicated, even (and often especially) in the New World, where matrilineal and patrilineal lines were important in determining someone's status and relevance in a tribe, clan, and village/community. Many tribes kept war prisoners as slaves (though I and other historians are very quick to point out indigenous slavery was quite unlike that of Atlantic slavery which came with Europeans), invasions and wars of conquest between tribes were common, and life just sucked. This isn't to say that life outside of the New World was better, I'm just being frank when I say that that living before like 1950 was just not fun for anyone. There's a lot of evidence that the Carib people, the Calusa people, the Mexica people, and other societies were frequent invaders and conquerors of neighbors (the Calusa are probably my favorite) and established sometimes very rigid control over their neighbors.

So, no. The noble savage myth is just that- a myth. No matter what way it's framed, it is incorrect, based off of its assumptions which are rooted inextricably in biological racism and its assumptions about Western society.