Why would it correct to name the new game after the part that isn't present anymore (the setting) instead of the thing that is still present?

I don't think using Planescape D&D setting would be preferable, even if they could. Planescape setting has been radically changed by Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro since the 3rd and 4th edition of D&D, which screwed up the lore substantially.

I wasn't suggesting that's what the devs. should use...just that it(Keeping the beginning part of the title while changing the ending part of the title) seems more logical than keeping the end part of the title and changing the beginning. ;)

As post#5 points out, the Planescape setting is defined loosely enough that the title could still fit.

Eh the D&D setting pretty much says what planes exist.

This is what i'm referring to.

Create Demiplane. Problem solved.
Not to mention that Planescape is part of the Multiverse, not Universe, thus each universe could have its own versions of each plane.

Got the same problem.

As for the game, I'm pretty sure I'll back it, but I have my doubts that it will be a worthy successor to Torment in my mind. I'm sure it will be better than Project Eternity in this respect, but I'm not sure it this setting can support the sense of wonder than the Planescape setting evoked.

The great thing about Planescape: Torment, and what grabbed me so well (until the annoying combat broke the spell) was that even though the game was moored in D&D rules, everything was so out of the ordinary. From the concept of the The Nameless One and progressing the story through death, the companions, the quests, features like the living Alley of Lingering Sighs, all that kind of stuff. Plus the writing (the very fact that I actually remember a line from the game "I was said to have a heart of gold... small, hard and yellow"), the idea that you could answer dialogues with the same answer but different intentions...

I don't want the same thing, but I want something which will cause me the same feeling of "I haven't seen all this before". Kind of like seeing Terminator 2 for the first time, or anything else which just caused me to go "wow, that's new" and not just "hey, that's a pretty neat take" (or worse "that's okay but they're just trying too hard").

I don't have much concerns. As long as the story is great, it's going to be an amazing game.

If it's a new PC/storyline/locale within the Planescape setting it might be pretty good....here's hoping, eh what? :)

(And fwiw I loved the combat, in part because killing/destroying some enemies netted you interesting loot/side quests in some cases.)

+1..........hundred. ;)

It's going to be in the Numenera universe, which is a SF game rather than a fantasy one. While the setting does allow for a lot of variety, I'm worried that SF will be limiting.

Still, the project text does promise "chart a course through bizarre dimensions", which is vaguely promising.

? How exactly is a Science Fantasy setting limited?
The ancients one knew how to make an armor impenetrable to arrows, but the secrets of making it have long since been forgotten. You may be able to find such an armor set in a dungeon, guarded by terrible monsters that you'll have to bypass, but you won't be able to buy it from the corner store. Does it matter if the armor is called "Armor of Arrow Protection" or "Forcefield Generator"? After all, if Arcanum could pull it off, why can't Numenera?

Same here.

Yes, SF has little to worry when compared to generic fantasy.

Numenera Universe is just the devs. slick way of saying "This is totally not set in one of the Planescape Universes"...otherwise, it should be similar enough(but not enough to be boring or predictable, hopefully) for PS:T fans to enjoy.

Also, magic/scifi/etc...what's the big difference mechanics-wise? Both settings allow one to employ some sort of supernatural/uberhuman ability to effect the world/the PC/enemies in various ways.

I'm sure he can shoehorn in a bard skill path/class somewhere(along with some more "mature" bard-like humor). -_-