AWESOME! This game looks fantastic. I'm tired of all these pseudo-realistic games that try so hard to take on dark tones to the point of being comical. Definitely not enough for me to buy an Xbox One (neither console has my graces right now, but the Xbox One is way lower on the list for me) however it's a great step in the right direction. I almost don't want there to be a PC version so there'll be some justification for buying an Xbox One.... almost ;)

@Alurit @DeadrisingX1 Or it could just show that this game wasn't reviewed properly in the slightest. GodHand, a widely held phenomenal game, got 3/10 from IGN and I think an 8/10 from GS. Wait for a second opinion...or just play it anyway if you wanted to play it from the get-go.

Actually, this game had a FANTASTIC chance of being f-ing amazing. This was made by Platinum games, the guys behind Metal Gear Rising, Wonderful 101, and oh yeah, the whole Bayonetta series -- the most recent installment of which just scored the 8th 10/10 in GameSpot's nearly 20 year history. Come on, bruh.

Secondly, always make sure you get a second opinion (or just trust your own instinct in the first place without looking at any reciew). Anyone who looks at a GameSpot review and bases their decision solely on that is not doing gaming right.

Wait what? When did it say that?

They look the exact same. The only difference, and it's barely worth mentioning, probably comes down to brightness and contrast ratios. Other than that they look absolutely identical. You can tell a difference between 900p and 1080p in person given sufficient screen size and/or distance to the screen, but considering GS's player only runs at 720p and because video compression algorithms water down image quality, there's no distinguishable difference in this video even when you're looking for things to compare.

I don't know how people can say this looks good. I mean, there's not even any actual gameplay in that trailer. The only things they showed were pretty much the cutscenes from every single special attack in the game and then the open world. None of that was really gameplay. I want to know what the battles are going to be like, not that I can customize some stupid character.

This game is so obscure and yet looks so fun! The fact that it exists in a world where games like Assassin's Creed sell millions of units when all it does is look pretty and force you to mash X during combat sequences makes me really realize how insane the state of the games industry is. Is this what it's come to? This game won't sell anything and yet it'll be a million times more fun than the over-marketed triple A this year that has poor gameplay but an extensive graphical pipeline...

BF4 was linear? But what about those times I could kinda move left and right while shooting?

Ryse: Son of Rome coming to PC? Somehow, that's NOT one less reason to own an Xbox One.

V-Sync still isn't perfect, as Cam said, but not for the same reasons he's stating. G-Sync isn't the first thing to come along and solve the stuttering issue. Triple buffering has been here for some time and has mitigated the problems V-Sync has and prevents the annoying stuttering cam is talking about, wherein V-Sync would usually result in your fps dropping to the next multiple of your refresh rate. That problem being that normally if you were rendering at 60 fps, and all of sudden your graphics card could only output 58 fps for one point in time, your frame rate would instantly drop to 30 fps until your graphics card was able to output 60 fps once more. Triple buffering, or triple buffered V-Sync, fixed that problem and is available in most modern games... with exceptions being from developers who seem to not care at all about PC (a.k.a. Ubisoft). If you have triple buffering on and you drop to 58 fps, you stay at 58 fps. The only downside is that it causes slightly more input lag, and depending on who you are and how competitive and reaction-based your game is, might prove annoying... and THAT'S when we can all talk about how Nvidia's G-Sync really shines.