He didn't say that. He blamed two action system in Numenera on Xcom and I just corrected it by saying D&D had it before Xcom and since Numenera is based on D&D, it is normal it is going to be using two action system.

Clear?

I don't agree with that at all. Based on what I've seen so far, I think the environments look pretty good.

It's more of a futuristic style than what I was expecting, but the backgrounds are quite detailed with lots of animated objects. I was actually surprised by how good it looks, as I've never really had much interest in this game.

TBH, I haven't seen nearly enough yet to form a judgement on the environments, atmosphere, writing, etc.

Yes, it's clear that you don't understand and that you're wrong about D&D :)

First 7 seconds of clip. "Temporary UI"

I believe we've already established that even the developers aren't sure what that means, which makes it pretty useless in terms of what we want to know.

It seems a small point to me, but I wasn't claiming the new Xcom invented the two-action system. That game does seem to have made it extremely popular now, though. While we're getting many more turn-based games these days, which I like, they're all using the -- yes, I'll call it dumbed down -- two-action system, which seems to me to have been made popular by the new Xcom.

I prefer action points. They add more strategic decisions, especially when you are given the ability to carry over some unused points to your next turn, like you can in Original Sin. Hell, Larian was practically apologizing for that system and further explaining it in updates after after releasing the game in Early Access, as they apparently received complaints. And, if I'm not mistaken, Larian has dropped action points in favor of the two-action system in their sequel to Original Sin. Apparently, people like to think as little as possible these days.

Despite being set a billion years in the future, the women still manage to look like they did in the 1970s. Heh.

I don't care how other game do it. TToN is doing it because D&D does it, it has nothing to do with Xcom. After all WL2 does not have two action system, Inxile are not slaves to what "cool" kids do.

You have a source for this? As that's terrible.

Larian haven't dropped action points but they have dropped the number of action points available to characters to around 4. Also ability cost of ap's have also dropped in tandem to around 1 for ordinary abilities and 2 or 3 etc for big abilities etc. You can still save ap's for next turn.

Hmm, ok then. I guess it depends on execution.

I'm generally not a fan of simplifying systems that work well for no reason except to simplify them. I'm going to have to assume they have a good reason here.

It's very easy to cross the line and make the optimal approach too obvious.

This was especially bad in the new X-Com. Basically the entire game was about moving into cover and "luring" as few enemies out as possible. It made for a pretty predictable tactical layer - apart from the atrocious random factor.

Yeah they do have reasons. Something about improving the tactical feel of the game so your not just ability spamming and really choosing what you do with each ap. I think its a really good call actually, going by the streams I've watched of D:OS 2

Hmm, I felt D:OS was quite tactical - and I never felt like I was just spamming abilities.

I have to say I'm sceptical that reducing the amount of actions points to 4 is going to be an improvement.

The original X-Com probably did have too many actions points, and there's no reason to have much more than 10-15 or so. Something like Fallout 1 seems pretty ideal to me.

But 4 sounds like it won't be a wide enough spectrum of choice.

I'll have to wait and see.

If you consider first turn advantage you probably wouldn't want the enemy to have too many ap's. We'll just have to wait and see ;)

*I remember now that they changed it because its easier to math ability costs then the variable ap amounts they had before.

Yes, and because it's easier to design is most definitely not a good reason to change it, by itself :)

I remember the guy behind Dungeon Siege having the very same general position.

He kept talking about simplifying things when he didn't see a reason for them to be complex.

That makes sense, doesn't it?

The only issue is that there just might be a reason that requires actual insight to see and understand ;)

He didn't have that. Same goes for the new X-Com.

I do understand that the developers of it - and many fans - don't see the reason for action points, but that doesn't mean the reason isn't there.

But I trust in Larian in general, even though they make many mistakes. I still like their games quite a bit overall.

Potential over-simplification is not something I'm worried about for this game given how much they have expanded the abilities and interactivity available. Although I do agree that other designers other get this wrong and miss the nuances. At this point Larian have earned some faith.

Oh and Torment is looking interesting also ;)

I agree with that overall ;)

But I'm slightly worried.

For instance, I had complete faith in CDPR for Witcher 3 - and I was left quite disappointed all the same.

I haven't played Witcher 3 yet (or gotten far in 2)

So far I'm disappointed in 2 too much to be interested in 3. But everyone says such good things about it so I'll probably play it when it gets much cheaper. I still have to finish 2 after all. (Too many cutscenes left me annoyed and quick-time events are making me mad) What is your annoyance with 3? (without spoilers please)

They eliminated quick-time events for TW3. There are quite a few cutscenes, but they're generally excellent for the most part.