Haha yeah if it is THAT direct for sure. Another story with Redic would be interesting but all our pitches have been like in further away areas like Ohmes or northern Lovania, I think Cheese suggested Jor. Also time periods too, something like a world war situation etc.
I guess it really depends on your creative process.
For me personally, I think there is an argument to be made for both concepts: direct and non-direct sequels.
For non-direct sequels: You have games like Fallout and Elder Scrolls, franchises that explore the worlds they inhabit in different games with different locations and main characters, thus allowing the creators to be more creative with their work, maybe even reducing development fatigue. Lots of good narative games too, like Fear & Hunger and Persona who have a lot of narative quality while also being non direct.
The underside of that are games that dont really succeed in accomplishing that.
Like Dragon Age; where each succeeding game falls short of the First one, which is lauded greatly, until reaching its miasmic end which is Veilgard (Rest In Piss). Or Assassins Creed (Not sure if this counts as non-direct series or not, but since it does switch up it's main characters from time to time I'll include it.); For me personally it feels like after 3 it really suffered from a lack of direction, combined with a game style and methodology that never really grew or evolved, thus causing a lot of stagnation.
For direct sequels: Games like Mass Effect and the Batman Arkham games.
Having a direct sequel can help shape a narative around the main character, whether it's around an overarching threat or a characters personal struggles, it can give a game a greater focus on it's story when it's driven by the action of the main character, and by proxy "you".
A problem that can happen for direct sequels is that there is a tendency to try and increase the stakes for each succeding game, in order to give the player a feeling of urgency and importance. Since the main character has already beaten the odds and overcame adversity, you can either give them higher stakes, or reset them back to square one, which can sometimes be tiring and repetitive.
An example of that is the Saints row series, where the "Boss" character goes through both pretty regularly, which has caused a lot of discontent for the fans. Although to be fair, that can change depending which game you played first or which you enjoyed the most (I personally prefere 3).
There are also middle grounds like the Fable series, Lows and highs depending on the games played.
Another is Deus Ex,
AMAZING first game, with a drop off in later games.
It's also technically possible to combine both, with one of my favorites games, Banner Saga.
The series has multiple protaganists that branch off into both direct and non direct story archs.
Rook/Alett are the direct narative that we follow across the series, while the non-direct narative is played by multiple different protaganists, that also fleshes out the world of the game.
I do admite, I have a biase about which I would prefer.
I've come to enjoy Redic and would like to see more of him. More then that, I also think that LW has also become a mainstay of Price for Freedom world since she has appeared in several media already. So if the game gets further away from Kaldea and Atlathka, We will see less of her and Redic.
Which is why I would Like to see them in a game where they appear together, since I like the chemistry they have with each other.
In the end, whatever you choose is good for me. I Trust that the game you make will have the quality that i've come to enjoy.