The Lies of P 2 Oz theory is the dominant community lens for the newly trademarked Wonders of O, and the debate splits sharply across five fronts: sequel vs. prequel framing, the Alice crossover, an open-world redesign, the Peter Pan easter-egg question, and a generative AI controversy that has spilled into every thread on the r/liesofp discussion board. Players are not just guessing a setting; they are reverse-engineering NEOWIZ's trademark language, weighing evidence from a Polygon report on the leaked Lies of P sequel direction against the base game's ending, and watching for the official signal that will turn theory into canon.
What makes this moment unusual is how thin the official evidence is. A single trademark filing pulled from the Korean intellectual property database, plus a handful of community datamines, is feeding a theory engine that touches on the base game's lore, the Overture prequel expansion, and a public-domain catalog that includes The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, and Peter and Wendy. The following breakdown walks through each active strand of the Lies of P 2 Oz theory, ranks the strongest pieces of evidence, and surfaces the open questions that the community is still arguing about.
The Lies of P 2 Oz Theory: What the Trademark Actually Tells Us
The term "Wonders of O" first surfaced as a registered intellectual property asset, not as a marketing slogan. That distinction matters because trademarks have to declare a category of use, and the categories filed alongside the name give a narrow but real read on what the publisher is preparing to ship.
According to the Lies of P official publisher site, the base game shipped in 2023 and the Overture prequel expansion was bundled into the Complete Edition, with the latest patch line sitting at 1.13.1.0 as of the verification date. The trademark itself was picked up by gaming outlets and tied back to a Neowiz filing, which is how the title "Wonders of O" entered the public conversation. Community reports, summarized by GameRant's coverage of the leaked sequel name, treat that filing as the strongest available evidence for the setting and thematic direction of the next entry. What the trademark confirms, and what it does not, can be summarized as a short evidence ledger.
| Evidence Point | Confirmed by Trademark? | Confirmed by Other Sources? | Community Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project name "Wonders of O" | Yes (Neowiz filing) | Echoed in gaming press | High |
| Oz / Dorothy theming | Inferred only (title wordplay) | Press speculation | Medium |
| Direct sequel to Lies of P | Inferred (same publisher + series) | Not officially announced | High |
| Prequel framing possible | Inferred only | Overture precedent | Low–Medium |
| Alice crossover | Not implied by filing | Community datamine rumors | Speculative |
| Open-world design | Not implied by filing | Player wishlist, not data | Speculative |
| Gen AI involvement | Not implied by filing | Active controversy thread | Speculative |
Reading that table, the only claims the community can defend with primary evidence are the name itself and the high-probability sequel relationship. Everything else is layered interpretation, which is exactly why the Lies of P 2 Oz theory has become a five-front debate instead of a single settled narrative.
Why "O" Is Doing Heavy Lifting
The choice of a single letter is the most analyzed detail in the trademark. "O" can map cleanly to Oz, to "Overture," or to an original title that has not been disclosed. Game studios occasionally register partial titles and codenames, which means the final shipping name could still drift, but the public-domain Oz material documented on Wikipedia's entry for The Wonderful Wizard of Oz gives Round8 Studio a ready-made cast of icons: Dorothy Gale, Toto, the Scarecrow, the Tin Man, the Cowardly Lion, the Wicked Witch of the West, and the Emerald City. The Lies of P 2 Oz theory argues that this cast will be repurposed through the same Belle Époque soulslike lens that the base game used for the Krat saga.
Sequel vs. Prequel: The Lies of P 2 Sequel or Prequel Debate
The Lies of P 2 sequel or prequel debate is the backbone of every other theory, because the answer changes how every character and ending is supposed to be read. A direct sequel has to reconcile the human-Pinocchio ending, the Lies system, and the surviving cast from Krat. A prequel has to navigate the timeline back through the Alchemists, the Ergo crisis, and the puppet factories.
The base game's canonical summary, as documented on Wikipedia's Lies of P page, describes a multi-ending structure driven by the humanity stat, a weapon assembly system, and Fable Arts tied to boss weapons. That design footprint is the strongest argument for a sequel: the studio has built a progression vocabulary that carries over.
The Sequel Argument
A direct sequel is the simplest reading, and simplicity carries weight in theory work. The base game already pivoted from a Pinocchio retelling to a deeper conspiracy about the Alchemists, the petrification disease, and Simon Manus. Carrying those threads forward into an Oz-themed cycle is a clean narrative bridge, because the human ending of the first game leaves Pinocchio facing a world that has just learned what the Puppet Frenzy really was.
The Prequel Argument
The prequel case leans on the Overture expansion. Overture already proved Round8 Studio is willing to revisit earlier periods in Krat's history rather than push forward, and a second prequel would let the studio reuse the "dark Belle Époque fairy-tale" framing without paying off the human ending. Critics of this reading note that two prequels in a row would be a commercial risk, especially after the first game's ending threads went unresolved.
| Reading | Narrative Cost | Commercial Risk | Lore Consistency |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct sequel (forward) | High (must resolve human ending) | Medium | Strong (continues active threads) |
| Prequel (Overture-style) | Low (new cast window) | Higher (back-to-back prequels) | Medium (side-steps ending) |
| Side-story (contemporary) | Medium (crossover window) | Low | Variable (depends on cast overlap) |
| Soft reboot (new protagonist) | High (rebuilds systems) | Highest | Weak (breaks series continuity) |
Most community moderators on the r/liesofp discussion threads treat the sequel reading as the working assumption, with the prequel kept open until Round8 Studio's first full trailer, which would almost certainly name the protagonist. Until that trailer lands, the Lies of P 2 Oz theory remains officially agnostic on the timeline direction.
The Lies of P 2 Alice Theory: Wonderland Showing Up in Krat
The Lies of P 2 Alice theory is the second most active strand after the main Oz framework, and it draws on the same public-domain well: Lewis Carroll's Alice books are nearly as iconic as Baum's Oz cycle, and reusing them inside a soulslike would not be unprecedented. FromSoftware's catalogue already includes fairy-tale pastiche, and the Lies of P base game is itself a fairy-tale pastiche.
What makes the Alice theory specifically interesting is how well it would thematically overlap with the Pinocchio framing of the first game. Both stories use a child protagonist navigating a corrupt adult world, both rely on a single iconic sidekick, and both have been adapted through so many lenses that any new version is expected to be a deconstruction rather than a retelling. The Lies of P 2 Alice theory argues that Round8 Studio will treat the two fairy tales the same way, with Oz providing the main setting and Alice providing the surreal underlayer.
Evidence For and Against the Alice Crossover
The strongest community evidence for the Alice crossover is a set of datamined audio cues that allegedly reference tea-party imagery and the White Rabbit, but the audio files have not been independently verified, and the community confidence rating sits in the speculative band. The strongest counter-argument is the trademark itself: "Wonders of O" foregrounds one fairy tale, not two, and adding a second property usually requires a second trademark filing.
| Alice Theory Claim | Supporting Evidence | Counter-Evidence | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tea-party boss arena | Datamined audio (unverified) | No official mention | Speculative |
| White Rabbit NPC guide | Pattern match to Toto role | No datamine confirmation | Speculative |
| Cheshire Cat stand-in | Thematic fit only | No asset leaks | Speculative |
| Mad Hatter as trickster NPC | Community wishlist | No primary evidence | Speculative |
| Alice as playable secondary character | Base game precedent (Sophia) | No teaser footage | Low confidence |
A useful adjacent reading is the Alice theory's interaction with the Peter Pan question, because both properties sit in the same public-domain fairy-tale space and a single title can borrow from all three without committing to any one. The Peter Pan angle, in particular, is what makes the next subsection worth its own section.
The Peter Pan Question Inside the Oz Theory
The Lies of P 2 Peter Pan theory is the smallest of the three fairy-tale strands, but it is the one that does the most work for players who want a unified reading of the trademark. If the next game is Oz-themed, the obvious puzzle is which Oz: Baum's original 1900 novel, the MGM film, the musical Wicked, or some other retelling. The Peter Pan theory proposes a darker answer: that the studio is borrowing the "lost child" framing from J. M. Barrie rather than the geographic Kansas-to-Oz arc. Wherever the borrowing lands, the broader fan conversation continues to play out on the Lies Of P Subreddit, where readers weigh whether the "neverland" framing is a stylistic nod or a structural rewrite of the studio's mythic DNA.
Where Peter Pan Fits
Peter Pan as a property is dominated by a single image: a boy who refuses to grow up, locked in a war with a pirate captain over a band of children. The motif maps surprisingly well onto Lies of P's puppet-versus-human divide, because both worlds ask what it means to be a "real boy" or a "real child." A Peter Pan reading would let the studio keep the soulslike combat system and the body-horror aesthetic of Krat while changing the surface genre from puppet noir to fae-versus-pirate gothic.
The weakness of the Peter Pan reading is that it competes with the Oz reading for the same evidence slot, and there is no public asset that clearly favors one over the other. Until Round8 Studio or NEOWIZ confirms a theme, the Peter Pan strand is best treated as a thematic complement to the Oz framework rather than a competing theory.
The Lies of P 2 Open World Debate
The Lies of P 2 open world debate is the most practical strand for players, because it directly affects how the next game will play, how long it will run, and how its systems will be balanced. The base game used a semi-linear hub-and-spoke structure with a central city, multiple side areas, and a small number of open zones. A sequel that goes fully open world would change travel, encounter pacing, and boss design all at once.
The community position is split, and the split is roughly generational: players who came to the series through Elden Ring or other FromSoftware open worlds want a connected map, while players who valued Lies of P's tight level design want the sequel to preserve its compact identity. Round8 Studio has not commented publicly on the open world question, and the trademark filing is silent on design.
| Design Direction | Combat Implications | Pacing Implications | Risk Profile |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fully open world | Boss tuning harder, traversal-centric | Longer runtime, looser arc | High (development cost, balance) |
| Hub-and-spoke (base game) | Tight arenas, set-pieces | 25–35 hour campaign | Low (proven template) |
| Semi-open zones (souls-like hybrid) | Mix of arena and field bosses | 35–45 hour campaign | Medium |
| Procedural / modular zones | Variable encounter design | Variable runtime | Speculative |
The strongest argument for an open world is commercial: the soulslike audience has been trained by Elden Ring to expect a large map, and a smaller sequel could read as a step backward. The strongest argument against is craft: the base game's level design was widely praised for its density, and a fully open world is a known dilution risk for the genre.
The Lies of P 2 AI Debate
The Lies of P 2 AI debate is the most contentious of the five strands, and it is the one with the most direct community moderation consequences. The controversy centers on whether Round8 Studio or NEOWIZ is using generative AI tools in any part of the production pipeline: concept art, localization, voice synthesis, or marketing copy.
Players have been quick to flag any visual or written artifact that looks AI-assisted, and at least one Korean fan community circulated a thread accusing the publisher of using generative tools for promotional materials. The accusation is not confirmed, and the publisher has not issued a public statement, but the discussion is loud enough that the r/liesofp discussion threads on the topic have been pinned by moderators.
Why the AI Debate Cuts Differently Than Other Theories
The other four strands of the Lies of P 2 Oz theory are all about what the next game is. The AI debate is about how the next game is being made, and that distinction changes the stakes. A wrong Oz reading is a theory that gets revised; a confirmed AI pipeline is a buying decision for a segment of the audience. Players who are committed to the anti-AI position have publicly stated that they will skip the sequel if generative tools are confirmed, which is why the rumor has not faded the way most pre-release rumors do.
| AI Debate Position | Cited Evidence | Counter-Evidence | Community Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Generative AI in concept art | Style similarity flags | No forensic confirmation | Speculative |
| AI in localization | Translation artifacts | No official sample released | Speculative |
| AI in marketing copy | Phrasing patterns | Standard PR boilerplate | Speculative |
| AI in voice work | No audio artifacts reported | No leak surfaced | Low (currently unflagged) |
| Studio policy commitment | Not yet published | Industry norm varies | Open question |
Until NEOWIZ publishes a formal production policy or a primary source surfaces, the AI debate functions as a reputation risk rather than a confirmed fact. Players tracking the Lies of P 2 Oz theory should treat it as a parallel discussion that affects reception, not as part of the in-fiction theory engine.
Putting the Strands Together: A Working Reading
The five strands of the Lies of P 2 Oz theory are not independent. The sequel-or-prequel decision sets the narrative frame, the Alice theory adds a secondary fairy-tale layer, the Peter Pan reading offers a thematic complement, the open world debate shapes the play experience, and the AI debate shapes whether a portion of the audience shows up at launch. A player trying to track all five at once needs a simple synthesis, and the table below is the working summary the community has converged on.
| Strand | Current Status | Highest-Confidence Claim | Key Open Question |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oz framework | Active, dominant | Setting pulls from Baum's 1900 novel | Which Oz? (Original, Wicked, MGM) |
| Sequel or prequel | Active | Sequel more likely than prequel | Does the human ending get resolved? |
| Alice crossover | Speculative | Thematic fit only | Will a second trademark appear? |
| Peter Pan complement | Minor | Lost-child motif viable | Competes with Oz for the same slot |
| Open world | Undecided | Player base is split | Will Round8 commit to a connected map? |
| AI pipeline | Reputation risk only | Not confirmed | Will NEOWIZ publish a production policy? |
What the table makes clear is that the Lies of P 2 Oz theory is a layered conversation rather than a single bet. Players who care about narrative will focus on the sequel-or-prequel question, players who care about systems will focus on the open world debate, and players who care about production ethics will focus on the AI question. All three groups are reading the same trademark and arriving at different priority lists.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the Lies of P 2 Oz theory officially confirmed?
No official confirmation has been issued by NEOWIZ or Round8 Studio. The theory rests on a Korean trademark filing for the name "Wonders of O," gaming press coverage of that filing, and community datamines that have not been independently verified. Players should treat all sequel-setting claims as community inference, not publisher fact, until a full trailer is released.
What is the strongest evidence for the Alice crossover?
The strongest current evidence is a set of datamined audio cues that allegedly reference tea-party imagery and the White Rabbit. Those files have not been independently confirmed, so the Lies of P 2 Alice theory sits in the speculative band. If Round8 Studio files a second trademark referencing Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, the theory would move from speculative to actively supported.
Will Wonders of O be open world?
No announcement has been made. The open world debate is driven by player expectation after Elden Ring and by community wishlist posts, not by official design documentation. The base game's hub-and-spoke structure was widely praised, so a sequel is more likely to extend that template than to commit to a fully connected map on the first attempt.
What does the Peter Pan theory add to the Oz reading?
The Peter Pan strand offers a thematic complement rather than a competing setting. It borrows the "lost child" motif and applies it to the puppet-versus-human divide of the base game, which would let the studio keep the soulslike combat and the body-horror aesthetic while changing the surface genre. It is not currently the dominant reading, and most community moderators treat it as a side lens.
Has NEOWIZ commented on the AI controversy?
No formal statement has been published. The AI debate is currently a community-flagged reputation risk rather than a confirmed fact, and it lives mostly in pinned r/liesofp discussion threads. Until a production policy is published or a primary source surfaces, players tracking the controversy should treat unverified claims as speculative and revisit the question when an official response lands.