http://www.gametrailers.com/side-mission/2011/12/20/bioware-hints-at-the-future-of-dragon-age-with-some-lessons-learned-from-skyrim/

In a new interview with Wired.com's Game Life, BioWare CEO and co-founder Dr. Ray Muzyka offers tantalizing, but vague insight into the developer's medieval role-playing game franchise.
Muzyka says he's "seen something in the last couple of weeks that is really the future of [the Dragon Age] franchise that is so compelling, I am so looking forward to being able to announce it." Whether he's referring to a direct sequel, a spin-off or an expansion for the coolly received Dragon Age II remains to be seen. BioWare and its publisher EA have not yet officially announced their plans for the series.
Buy Muzyka notes the next Dragon Age title "is gonna have the best of features from the prior Dragon Age games, but it’s also gonna have a lot of things I think players are gonna find compelling from some of the games that are out now that are doing really well with more of an open world feel." Meaning Skyrim, of course.

Glad to see that Bioware is interested in taking elements from other rpgs. I really hope they use everything they learned to make Dragon Age 3 as awesome as possible.

What features from Skyrim (or other games) would you like to see in the next Dragon Age? How about a more open landscape with free roaming dragons. Cause for a game series called Dragon Age, there's a surprising small amount of actual dragons.

Not being shit.

Good. Hopefully Skyrim's insane amount of success will show them that there is a big audience for RPG's. I don't think Bioware should start making open world games, I think that would go against what they're good at and what they're trying to achieve with their games.. More exploration couldn't hurt though, but I just hope they realise that they don't need to be a third person shooter or a God of War action game for people to care.

If there is one thing Bioware need to do before making another game, it's going back to basics.

make the dungeons unique?

They are already better at the relationship stuff so....Man If all the best elements of Bioware RPGs and all the best elements of Bethesda RPGs were smooshed together it would be the greatest game of all time, no question!

Dragon Age could use some of Skyrim's variety, at least. This should be beneficial to the next Dragon Age.

Having any kind of open-worldness, even just as much as Mass Effect, would be nice. The main problem I had with Dragon Age II, which I enjoyed overall, was the repeated areas and overall how small the world felt. A world a fraction the size of Skyrims would make a difference.

They didn't need to learn from Skyrim to know what to do for a Dragon Age sequel. Just make it more like Origins and much less like DA2 and I will throw my money at them.

oh boy looking at a series with worse writing can only help them in the long run

@mandude said:

If there is one thing Bioware need to do before making another game, it's going back to basics.

I agree with this 100%. The charm of Bioware games has started to rub off now that they're trying to make their games a catch-all of genres rather than the third-person RPG's.

So long as it's better than Dragon Age II and all around kick-ass, then fantastic!

@DaemonBlack said:

They didn't need to learn from Skyrim to know what to do for a Dragon Age sequel. Just make it more like Origins and much less like DA2 and I will throw my money at them.

I agree.

In the future, Bioware and Bethesda will team up. Gamers everywhere will salivate at the prospect of some of the greatest games ever made being created from this union. The games will swiftly go downhill. #ripsquaresoft #ripenix

In the future, Bioware and Bethesda will team up. Gamers everywhere will salivate at the prospect of some of the greatest games ever made being created from this union. The games will swiftly go downhill. #ripsquaresoft #ripenix

@Animasta said:

oh boy looking at a series with worse writing can only help them in the long run

I doubt that's the aspect of the game they would look to for inspiration. Maybe the part where Dragon Age 2 felt incredibly small in scope and narrow in player choice?

@Dtat said:

@Animasta said:

oh boy looking at a series with worse writing can only help them in the long run

I doubt that's the aspect of the game they would look to for inspiration. Maybe the part where Dragon Age 2 felt incredibly small in scope and narrow in player choice?

wait, there was player choice in skyrim? where the fuck was that

@Dtat said:

@Animasta said:

oh boy looking at a series with worse writing can only help them in the long run

I doubt that's the aspect of the game they would look to for inspiration. Maybe the part where Dragon Age 2 felt incredibly small in scope and narrow in player choice?

wait, there was player choice in skyrim? where the fuck was that

I just hope they grab the "more places to explore" part .... I wanna play Dargon Age , not Dragon Skyage (and I really like both origins and DA2)

if they make DA1 again with better combat I'd be happy. of course they aren't going to get the better combat from Skyrim...

@Animasta said:

@Dtat said:

@Animasta said:

oh boy looking at a series with worse writing can only help them in the long run

I doubt that's the aspect of the game they would look to for inspiration. Maybe the part where Dragon Age 2 felt incredibly small in scope and narrow in player choice?

wait, there was player choice in skyrim? where the fuck was that

I mean in terms of when and what you do. The choice to go off and complete one series of quests or another. It didn't funnel you down a single path like DA 2 did.

Not necessarily something they need to learn since they've already done it, but I want them to let me create/import my Grey Warden from Origins and ditch the Hawke/Shepard protagonist that has spoken dialogue.

If there is one thing Bioware need to do before making another game, it's going back to basics.

Day One nude mod is obviously what they are alluding to. Sales increase 300%.

@Axxol said:

@DaemonBlack said:

They didn't need to learn from Skyrim to know what to do for a Dragon Age sequel. Just make it more like Origins and much less like DA2 and I will throw my money at them.

I agree.

Same here. The best thing that Bioware could do is own up to the mistakes made in Dragon Age II and make a game that actually feels like a sequel to Dragon Age: Origins instead of Mass Effect: Fantasy Edition.

Or how about you look at the masterpieces you have made, such as Baldur's Gate, and don't get fucking idiots to advertise your game?

Bioware will make millions.

@TheSeductiveMoose said:

Not being shit.

Not reusing one room over and over again. Just that would make a much better game. In terms of art assets, both games are similar, Skyrim just used it very well and had variety in how things were arranged.

@Dtat said:

@Animasta said:

@Dtat said:

@Animasta said:

oh boy looking at a series with worse writing can only help them in the long run

I doubt that's the aspect of the game they would look to for inspiration. Maybe the part where Dragon Age 2 felt incredibly small in scope and narrow in player choice?

wait, there was player choice in skyrim? where the fuck was that

I mean in terms of when and what you do. The choice to go off and complete one series of quests or another. It didn't funnel you down a single path like DA 2 did.

that's hardly choice. Even in DA2, you could do the wrong thing in quests and fuck up characters, even permanently get rid of them; I'm not saying that the choice of DA2 was perfect all the time, but it was at least more involved than skyrim

@Tru3_Blu3 said:

Or how about you look at the masterpieces you have made, such as Baldur's Gate, and don't get fucking idiots to advertise your game?

Baldur's Gate, a masterpiece? I dunno. X-Men Legends was a better game. Baldur's Gate was like Torchlight, but not as good.

Sadly, there aren't many people around these parts that have played the original 1998? Baldur's Gate proper. A game that complex is sadly, a niche genre now. Very niche. PC gamers loved Dragon Age 1 because it was a return to that style of gameplay; sure, it was no where near as complex, but no one had done a big budget title like that in a long time. Console gamers? I'm sure there are some that loved it, but for every one person I came across that loved it, there were a hundred that hated it. It wasn't quite the new shit enough for them, I guess.

Hopefully they'll learn to appeal to their audience, instead of chasing other games' tail.

Skyrim is massively successful because it knows what it wants to be.

Dragon Age 3 will have backwards dragons on launch.

@Animasta said:

@Dtat said:

@Animasta said:

@Dtat said:

@Animasta said:

oh boy looking at a series with worse writing can only help them in the long run

I doubt that's the aspect of the game they would look to for inspiration. Maybe the part where Dragon Age 2 felt incredibly small in scope and narrow in player choice?

wait, there was player choice in skyrim? where the fuck was that

I mean in terms of when and what you do. The choice to go off and complete one series of quests or another. It didn't funnel you down a single path like DA 2 did.

that's hardly choice. Even in DA2, you could do the wrong thing in quests and fuck up characters, even permanently get rid of them; I'm not saying that the choice of DA2 was perfect all the time, but it was at least more involved than skyrim

I think he is arguing about how questlines and the radiant story system works. Essentially, you could have a "complete" experience of Skyrim without even completing the main quest.

In terms of the Civil War questline, you can keep Skyrim in a state of perpetual civil war, help fight for an independent Skyrim or put down the Stormcloak rebellion altogether. While the main, dragon-oriented quest itself remained sorta linear in the typical Elder Scrolls canon fashion, some choices came up as to whether you'd play along with certain factions such as the Blades and how you'd deal with certain dragons.

Also, the way that the open world is scripted to have subtle reflections of what happens in the larger scheme of things relative to your actions via radiant story is solid, too. While some dialogue with NPCs end up fixed and some characters retain dialogue pertaining to the war long after the war has ended (I actually think that happened to me due to some glitch with a questline not registering as complete since I played through it before any patches came out), I think the radiant AI and radiant story practices they applied in Skyrim were great proof of concepts for the potential of the new engine they're using.

There are more than 5 questlines in Skyrim, too, so it gets pretty deep. You have the ability to completely avoid or completely cut off certain questlines depending on your alignment. You can take quests for certain factions or wipe them out completely. You can also use your skills or experiences based on your own adventuring or previous questlines to circumvent parts of quests, too.

Aspects of Skyrim actually get extremely involved. It might be hard to grasp unless you've spent a lot of time with it to really see how it works over time, though.

BioWare shouldn't need to look at other RPGs for inspiration and improvements. They're fucking BioWare. They're among the most venerable and worshipped CRPG developers ever. Dragon Age: Origins is one of the best video games I've ever played, and Baldur's Gate II is considered a classic of the genre.

Maybe this isn't such a big deal, but there's a lack of confidence and conviction from BioWare that I haven't seen before. That, plus their cramming of multiplayer or co-op into ME3, and rumours of arena-based combat in Dragon Age, makes me feel like BioWare has lost their identity. ME2 was a good game but was barely an RPG, Dragon Age 2 was a disappointment, and nothing I've heard about The Old Republic sounds appealing at all. Maybe BioWare should start looking to other devs for inspiration...

@Atlas: I agree, I think some of their recent work caused them to lose confidence in their craft. Instead of looking at other devs, though, they definitely should consider at what made them successful in the first place and going back to their roots. I'm sure it'll definitely attract people such as myself who loved their earlier games.

The thing is that I come to those series for very different things. I like Dragon Age's story and characters a lot more then The Elder Scrolls games. I like the combat system of Origins a little more then Skyrim's, though I think they both need a lot of work. I like the open ended experience that Skyrim and its ilk give me, but I really don't want to extend that to DA. I don't think a DA version of Skyrim, or vice versa, is what I want to see those companies do next with those IPs. I mean I dislike funneling as much as the next person, but I like my Bioware a little more structured.

@Tru3_Blu3 said:

Or how about you look at the masterpieces you have made, such as Baldur's Gate, and don't get fucking idiots to advertise your game?

Baldur's Gate, a masterpiece? I dunno. X-Men Legends was a better game. Baldur's Gate was like Torchlight, but not as good.

Sadly, there aren't many people around these parts that have played the original 1998? Baldur's Gate proper. A game that complex is sadly, a niche genre now. Very niche. PC gamers loved Dragon Age 1 because it was a return to that style of gameplay; sure, it was no where near as complex, but no one had done a big budget title like that in a long time. Console gamers? I'm sure there are some that loved it, but for every one person I came across that loved it, there were a hundred that hated it. It wasn't quite the new shit enough for them, I guess.

@Animasta said:

@Dtat said:

@Animasta said:

@Dtat said:

@Animasta said:

oh boy looking at a series with worse writing can only help them in the long run

I doubt that's the aspect of the game they would look to for inspiration. Maybe the part where Dragon Age 2 felt incredibly small in scope and narrow in player choice?

wait, there was player choice in skyrim? where the fuck was that

I mean in terms of when and what you do. The choice to go off and complete one series of quests or another. It didn't funnel you down a single path like DA 2 did.

that's hardly choice. Even in DA2, you could do the wrong thing in quests and fuck up characters, even permanently get rid of them; I'm not saying that the choice of DA2 was perfect all the time, but it was at least more involved than skyrim

We're talking about different things, and that's fine. There's a lot they could take from Skyrim sense of scope. I think we can agree on that at least.

@Zelyre said:

@Tru3_Blu3 said:

Or how about you look at the masterpieces you have made, such as Baldur's Gate, and don't get fucking idiots to advertise your game?

Baldur's Gate, a masterpiece? I dunno. X-Men Legends was a better game. Baldur's Gate was like Torchlight, but not as good.

Sadly, there aren't many people around these parts that have played the original 1998? Baldur's Gate proper. A game that complex is sadly, a niche genre now. Very niche. PC gamers loved Dragon Age 1 because it was a return to that style of gameplay; sure, it was no where near as complex, but no one had done a big budget title like that in a long time. Console gamers? I'm sure there are some that loved it, but for every one person I came across that loved it, there were a hundred that hated it. It wasn't quite the new shit enough for them, I guess.

Wait wait wait. In your first sentence you compare Baldur's Gate to X-Men Legends and Torchlight, which makes me think you're actually referring to Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance. But then at the beginning of the next paragraph you claim to be talking about the original Baldur's Gate CRPG -- which has absolutely nothing in common with X-Men Legends or Torchlight. So which are you actually referring to, because they're both incredibly different games.

Also, I have to concur with @Jimbo -- Dragon Age: Origins was very well received on consoles. I know a lot of people who've never played any old CRPGs (several, in fact, who have never played RPGs before at all) who really, really enjoyed DA:O.

@EquitasInvictus you're making it seem much more deep than it actually is. I mean, yeah, by siding with the stormcloaks than you lock yourself out of quests, but most of those quests, by that nature, are a lot more insubstantial. The more important ones (jagged crown) are played by both. Also, that incidental dialogue? it's completely worthless, as well as being... very easy to see through. "oh, I see you have done *QUEST NAME X*, than I should say *LINE OF DIALOGUE X*". Dragon age, even the witcher, have quests that drive the story and get you to either different places, or in DA2, important story revelations. Skyrim doesn't. Now, you can call DA2 a failure in some areas, but aping skyrim is not the answer. I never had difficulty making a choice in Skyrim, actually, and I did have trouble deciding things in DA2, as sometimes dumb as that game's story is. I am also... well looking forward is a bit of a strong feeling, but I'm vaguely interested in what DA3 does with the stuff they set up from DA2. Skyrim, by design, doesn't necessarily make me interested to see the next step forward for either of the main quests, since they're just... eh.

I know you're not necessarily arguing this, but Skyrim's openness doesn't really extend to the quests themselves; "you have the choice of doing that quest or not" is not openness, it's purposefully not seeing game content. I don't think I've run into a single choice during a quest that didn't involve "kill that guy, or don't kill that guy" and I've played for 76 hours so it's not like I'm talking out of my ass here

@Dtat: sense of scope? the only thing I wouldn't mind them stealing from Skyrim is more unique dungeons. I certainly don't want DA3 to be open world like Skyrim, that'd be weird and not what I want to play DA3 for.

@Animasta: I understand where you're coming from, being a big fan of and having played through the Dragon Age games myself. The reason why what you're talking about worked so well for them was due to how the game was built around the canon story with regards to the Grey Warden/Hawke.

On the other hand, Bethesda games are typically built around the "big picture" of the world's scale (i.e. Fallout's Earth/Tamriel) and its own overarching story/lore over the player's story. While the player plays a significant role in the world, I'd concede that the game sort of limits the player's role and actions in the larger scheme of things to preserve the world's canon to a degree (since they're pretty expansive) as opposed to the way the Dragon Age games gives the player a lot of freedom while making the game world feel a little narrower to travel (there were places where you really had nothing to see or interesting to do after you were done doing whichever quest you had to do there) in allowing the game world's canon to essentially depend on the player.

In this case I'd defer to what @Dtat posted last in that you two were indeed talking about two different kinds of "open" relative to the game world and in the player's actions.

The more I think of it, though, the more I'm beginning to see why Bioware shouldn't actually take elements of Skyrim. I think I'd actually end up being pretty upset if they allowed for a more open world experience in DA3 at the cost of the player being able to do significant things relative to the major story arcs like how their games typically work. They might risk diluting the franchise more and I don't think anyone would like that.

Make it more like the first one.

@EchoEcho said:

@Zelyre said:

@Tru3_Blu3 said:

Or how about you look at the masterpieces you have made, such as Baldur's Gate, and don't get fucking idiots to advertise your game?

Baldur's Gate, a masterpiece? I dunno. X-Men Legends was a better game. Baldur's Gate was like Torchlight, but not as good.

Sadly, there aren't many people around these parts that have played the original 1998? Baldur's Gate proper. A game that complex is sadly, a niche genre now. Very niche. PC gamers loved Dragon Age 1 because it was a return to that style of gameplay; sure, it was no where near as complex, but no one had done a big budget title like that in a long time. Console gamers? I'm sure there are some that loved it, but for every one person I came across that loved it, there were a hundred that hated it. It wasn't quite the new shit enough for them, I guess.

Wait wait wait. In your first sentence you compare Baldur's Gate to X-Men Legends and Torchlight, which makes me think you're actually referring to Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance. But then at the beginning of the next paragraph you claim to be talking about the original Baldur's Gate CRPG -- which has absolutely nothing in common with X-Men Legends or Torchlight. So which are you actually referring to, because they're both incredibly different games.

Also, I have to concur with @Jimbo -- Dragon Age: Origins was very well received on consoles. I know a lot of people who've never played any old CRPGs (several, in fact, who have never played RPGs before at all) who really, really enjoyed DA:O.

He's making a poorly constructed joke that Baldur's Gate to modern audiences IS the Dark Alliance series. His point is that most people that play modern Bioware games either don't know much or anything about their CRPGs.

He goes on to say that Origins performed well on consoles, but only a small portion of the audience who bought it enjoyed it enough to finish it. Bioware said as much from their achievement tracking. When you look at it that way, the awful Origins marketing actually did a good job of getting people that don't like that kind of game into buying it, oddly enough.

Not being shit.

@EquitasInvictus said:

@Animasta: I understand where you're coming from, being a big fan of and having played through the Dragon Age games myself. The reason why what you're talking about worked so well for them was due to how the game was built around the canon story with regards to the Grey Warden/Hawke.

On the other hand, Bethesda games are typically built around the "big picture" of the world's scale (i.e. Fallout's Earth/Tamriel) and its own overarching story/lore over the player's story. While the player plays a significant role in the world, I'd concede that the game sort of limits the player's role and actions in the larger scheme of things to preserve the world's canon to a degree (since they're pretty expansive) as opposed to the way the Dragon Age games gives the player a lot of freedom while making the game world feel a little narrower to travel (there were places where you really had nothing to see or interesting to do after you were done doing whichever quest you had to do there) in allowing the game world's canon to essentially depend on the player.

In this case I'd defer to what @Dtat posted last in that you two were indeed talking about two different kinds of "open" relative to the game world and in the player's actions.

The more I think of it, though, the more I'm beginning to see why Bioware shouldn't actually take elements of Skyrim. I think I'd actually end up being pretty upset if they allowed for a more open world experience in DA3 at the cost of the player being able to do significant things relative to the major story arcs like how their games typically work. They might risk diluting the franchise more and I don't think anyone would like that.

Until the next game in the series comes around and they say, "Fuck your choices, Leliana's alive anyway. Do your own mental gymnastics to construct a reason why." Avoiding spoilers, it's a tactic they haven't abandoned after Dragon Age II, and will be in some of their upcoming games. They used to be all about giving you choices and dealing with the ramifications, but they won't follow through with it on their own end. That's the most disappointing thing about DA and ME. Thanks for those emails reminding me what I did in ME 1, that's really the kind of consistent narrative you guys promised.

And for everyone saying "make it more like Origins", check this quote from the DA2 Wikipedia page:

Dragon Age II's lead designer, Mike Laidlaw, in an interview with GameSpot, addressed the fans' concerns toward the changes in Dragon Age II by stating that BioWare will "[despite Dragon Age's players' criticisms] continue to tune and capitalize on that 'fusion' between the Origins experience and Dragon Age II". Additionally, he also noted that a return to the RPG style of Dragon Age: Origins is unlikely, proclaiming "The big key is to not adjust 180 degrees again, because we've done this."

Dragon Age 3 is going to suck.

@Wrighteous86: Oh man, Leliana was alive in my DA:O iteration so I didn't know that she was canon in all DA2 ends. Knowing that now is kind of saddening, but I guess it would've been too ambitious to keep track of the overarching story if they didn't make concessions like that.

Most of what carried over between DA:O and DA2 for me seemed pretty consistent from what I remember, but I only had one playthrough of DA2 to recall upon and I had a fairly straightedge Warrior male Grey Warden and Mage fem Hawke that avoided catastrophic anti-canon-seeming player actions.

Also, while I share your disappointment to a degree with regards to both the ME and DA games canon carryovers, I feel like the amount of programming and scripting it would take to accommodate every scenario in the whole narrative would be too ambitious. I appreciate the fact that they've managed it as they have so far (with ME2 more than DA2, I'd say, although yeah the loads of emails is kinda sad).

Yo remember Dragon Age Origins? Make a game of that quality or better and it will do good. I mean for fuck sakes that game sold a ton on all 3 platforms and DA2 didn't even approach Origins' sales numbers.

@Wrighteous86: at least most of the choices carried over? yeah I don't expect DA3 to be any good, but... well I mean I've been surprised before.

@Wrighteous86 said:

@EchoEcho said:

@Zelyre said:

@Tru3_Blu3 said:

Or how about you look at the masterpieces you have made, such as Baldur's Gate, and don't get fucking idiots to advertise your game?

Baldur's Gate, a masterpiece? I dunno. X-Men Legends was a better game. Baldur's Gate was like Torchlight, but not as good.

Sadly, there aren't many people around these parts that have played the original 1998? Baldur's Gate proper. A game that complex is sadly, a niche genre now. Very niche. PC gamers loved Dragon Age 1 because it was a return to that style of gameplay; sure, it was no where near as complex, but no one had done a big budget title like that in a long time. Console gamers? I'm sure there are some that loved it, but for every one person I came across that loved it, there were a hundred that hated it. It wasn't quite the new shit enough for them, I guess.

Wait wait wait. In your first sentence you compare Baldur's Gate to X-Men Legends and Torchlight, which makes me think you're actually referring to Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance. But then at the beginning of the next paragraph you claim to be talking about the original Baldur's Gate CRPG -- which has absolutely nothing in common with X-Men Legends or Torchlight. So which are you actually referring to, because they're both incredibly different games.

Also, I have to concur with @Jimbo -- Dragon Age: Origins was very well received on consoles. I know a lot of people who've never played any old CRPGs (several, in fact, who have never played RPGs before at all) who really, really enjoyed DA:O.

He's making a poorly constructed joke that Baldur's Gate to modern audiences IS the Dark Alliance series. His point is that most people that play modern Bioware games either don't know much or anything about their CRPGs.

He goes on to say that Origins performed well on consoles, but only a small portion of the audience who bought it enjoyed it enough to finish it. Bioware said as much from their achievement tracking. When you look at it that way, the awful Origins marketing actually did a good job of getting people that don't like that kind of game into buying it, oddly enough.

Poorly constructed? I am hurt. :(

I'd like to think it simply went over people's heads. The Baldur's Gate Alliance series was incredibly forgettable, and it's sad that many people think that's the game gamers are talking about when they talk about Baldur's Gate fondly. It's a bit like how some people refer to Skyrim as Oblivion 2.

Slow the DA2 combat down a bit, maybe reduce the wave-based thing (I think they said they already decided to reduce that), and build more unique dungeon landscapes. I like that there are way more item models in DA2 than DA1 (you wear plain chain mail for 60% of that game!), I like that the cutscenes are way better produced and 'shot'. Combat feels way tighter but maybe a bit too fast.

I thought of this the other day.. What would have really worked for the 'seven year story' they were going for is if your companions got older or different looking through the years. If Varric gets a bit of grey at the temples, Isabela and Merrill grow and cut their hair, Anders' demonic possession has an effect on his health. Sebas already looks like he has a widow's peak, it would reinforce the 'moving through time' aspect if he went from a full head of hair to a receding hairline by Year Seven. People feel like nothing changes in Kirkwall when a lot actually does... But it's implied rather than shown. If you pay attention to the characters, Anders isn't even the same person he was at the start, but there's nothing for the player to instantly see so they tend to be surprised when he goes and does the inevitable thing.

@Animasta said:

@Dtat said:

@Animasta said:

oh boy looking at a series with worse writing can only help them in the long run

I doubt that's the aspect of the game they would look to for inspiration. Maybe the part where Dragon Age 2 felt incredibly small in scope and narrow in player choice?

wait, there was player choice in skyrim? where the fuck was that

The part where you decided to not follow the main quest and explore the rest of Skyrim instead.

What are they going have left for game play when they make this game. Their trend of removing gameplay when they make a sequel is not going to leave with much of a game. There was so little left after the transition from 1 to 2.