What was the deciding factor for you and the rest of the Obsidian staff in electing to create Fallout: New Vegas versus an original IP for your next game?

This is different than going off and making the Iron Man 2 game. I mean this isn't a movie game. It's taking a license that, first off, we already love -- and a lot of us actually were involved in making the original Fallout games. So this is sort of just something fun to do.

I mean literally, when I was at Interplay, a lot of the reasons why I didn't leave when I probably should have left before was so I could get to make another Fallout. And so I kind of look at New Vegas as a different kind of license.

Now, from kind of more of a business perspective ... I know it's a big surprise to everybody that the economy hasn't been what it has been. And in some ways, as a developer, it's easier to get licensed products signed up, just because it's sort of like -- usually, when a publisher is coming to you to talk to you about a game, you know, if they are saying, "Hey, we got this license we want you to use" -- you're already like 10 steps into the process.​

"One of the things we're focusing on with 'New Vegas,' is that this is a post-post-apocalyptic society. Governments have formed and have congress. There are large slaver armies and big merchant caravans."

The differences between the two worlds aren't just a matter of increased infrastructure, though. Sawyer described the world as "much more political." "'Fallout 3' presented the Enclave as very very bad, and the Brotherhood of Steel as very good in opposition to the Enclave," he explained. "In 'New Vegas' we're presenting the landscape a bit differently. You might think the [New California Republic] is purely good, but they're not purely good. And you may think Caesar's Legion is purely bad, but they're not purely bad."​