A name is a commitment, and Dambuster Studios must respect that if Embracer Group is to have a chance at a sequel.

Dead Island 2 could be considered one of the lost projects of the 2010s, as it was a long road from Techland to Dambuster Studios under Deep Silver, who finally delivered the game, which will be expanded with two DLCs (the second coming in 2024), but maybe fans want more than that. In fact, Los Angeles (or, as Dead Island 2 calls it, Hell-A) was a surprising twist on the setting, but the name of the game doesn’t quite fit. Dead Island. Why isn’t it set on an island? Why can’t the third installment (if there is a third installment, it’s up to the publisher, but lately the Embracer Group has been getting their feet wet with the Lord of the Rings IP…) be set there?

Los Angeles can only be called an island in a metaphorical sense, as the infected have invaded the city, which is now isolated from the USA. The first part was set on a fictional island, Banoi (not far from Papua New Guinea), and the end of the story was a cliffhanger; it would be interesting to explore the state of the island after the outbreak, and if the main character was a survivor who had lived on the island during the events, that would be a great basis, but both the first and second parts started at the outbreak, so the third act could show what an infected audience looks like long after the beginning.

If Banoi isn’t the setting for the new episode, the other obvious idea would be to set the story of Dead Island 3 on a completely new island. On a fictional island, the developers would be free to be creative with the story and have a much better chance of achieving the immersion of the game. But right now we can’t plan for Dead Island 3, because it might not be in development…

Source: GameRant