Why do people constantly complain about Metro when it IS easier to use?


Recommended Posts

And this is why the people complaining about metro are being stupid, anyone with half a brain can take the time to think about it and realise that since this is a preview OS there aren't enough apps to cover everyone's usage. As time passes, there will be more apps, and therefore less need to switch back and forth.

So when there are more apps to cover everyone's usage can I use metro start screen not in "full screen" ? If no, then it doesn't matter how many apps they have. If yes, then it might actually be useful.

Until then why do we need a different way to perform the tasks we do now? "It's different".

From the Start screen he said. The settings charm only offers the 'Control Panel' option if you're on the desktop. On the start, screen, clicking the Settings charm and then 'Settings' only gets you to the settings for the Start screen itself. Clicking 'More Settings' gets you into the Metro settings, but not the full control panel

Right-clicking the lower left works though.

From the Start Screen to get to Control Panel, start typing "C-O-N and voila! There it is.

Settings charm? The right click wasn't accident, it was demoed IIRC.

what work flow is broken specifically by metro? It has limited "multitasking" if you mean having multiple apps on screen at once.

Conclusion: You don't like metro (and that's ok) but it belongs in Windows 8. ;-)

If you're idea of multitasking is having more than 5-7 windows open at once (desktop with 4-6 windows resized and a Metro app snapped), then yes Metro is limited. But, considering you can have the same amount of windows open on the desktop as you previously did on other versions of windows, and you can work from there... I don't get it. And, people keep saying it breaks workflow but they NEVER explain how.

As far as why I like Windows 8, I've made multiple posts on specific aspects of it in which I believe it exceeds previous versions of windows. I don't just say, "Uh... it's awesome." I back it up. But, people who say it will be the worst failure since the Titanic don't support their claims or opinions. Not that they have to but it does make your argument less valid if you are debating and don't actually support your position.

Tell me how easy it is to use with 50+ programs installed. Do you remember every programs name ? Searching takes longer. Metro is easier to use if you only use maybe 10 programs at most . For people like me who uses dozens of programs a day having all those small squares on your metro start screen is a pain to use.

Why cant they just add the start orb to the desktop app? Its not that hard to do . Wont change much but will make windows 8 much easier for those of us who have tons of programs and do a lot with or desktops.

IMO, this is how metro should be done and will be the only way i would ever use it.

desktop.jpg

that's actually just rainmeter with a metro looking skin. it shows information, you can set up tiles that start up apps and write notes on. it compliments the desktop experience, not perform a hostile takeover.

  • Like 2

From the Start Screen to get to Control Panel, start typing "C-O-N and voila! There it is.

If you're idea of multitasking is having more than 5-7 windows open at once (desktop with 4-6 windows resized and a Metro app snapped), then yes Metro is limited. But, considering you can have the same amount of windows open on the desktop as you previously did on other versions of windows, and you can work from there... I don't get it. And, people keep saying it breaks workflow but they NEVER explain how.

As far as why I like Windows 8, I've made multiple posts on specific aspects of it in which I believe it exceeds previous versions of windows. I don't just say, "Uh... it's awesome." I back it up. But, people who say it will be the worst failure since the Titanic don't support their claims or opinions. Not that they have to but it does make your argument less valid if you are debating and don't actually support your position.

The problem is that every reason you come up with is a personal opinion. Subjective. What I don't get is why people care so much that others don't like Win8 metro start screen and why they insist that we have to change just for the sake of change.

If the metro start screen works great for you that's fantastic, I personally don't like it but I do like the start menu in Win7 just fine. Why can't I use one or the other? Why is that a problem for people who like metro? If they give us an option to use the old (current start screen) it won't have any impact on you.

IMO, this is how metro should be done and will be the only way i would ever use it.

that's actually just rainmeter with a metro looking skin. it shows information, you can set up tiles that start up apps and write notes on. it compliments the desktop experience, not perform a hostile takeover.

I would be happy with that "compromise". I put compromise in quotes because that would actually make sense to have it like that.

If you're idea of multitasking is having more than 5-7 windows open at once (desktop with 4-6 windows resized and a Metro app snapped), then yes Metro is limited. But, considering you can have the same amount of windows open on the desktop as you previously did on other versions of windows, and you can work from there... I don't get it. And, people keep saying it breaks workflow but they NEVER explain how.

As far as why I like Windows 8, I've made multiple posts on specific aspects of it in which I believe it exceeds previous versions of windows. I don't just say, "Uh... it's awesome." I back it up. But, people who say it will be the worst failure since the Titanic don't support their claims or opinions. Not that they have to but it does make your argument less valid if you are debating and don't actually support your position.

I do multitask a lot but going by warwagon's definition I am not a power user (because I like metro :p). I am typically running 2-3 browsers, eclipse, couple of git windows and then usual outloook, onenote, word, notepad++, 2 types of IM apps. All this stuff is running 24x7 on my workstation on 2 x 20" monitors. So yes, I multitask but most apps are not running full screen and I think that's where most people are freaked out about. I can see how I would for example quickly look at an IM window and then return to an app suitable for full screen say eclipse or onenote.

Even if all of them are running full screen, I don't see much of problem switching between them knowing how rapidly Windows 8 can switch between ..err...windows (seriously, open 7-8 apps and keep on clicking in top left corner, it's mindnumbing fast!)

Are people really troubled by such trivial stuff? :/

It's badly designed, that's all. It's also a direct result of the merging of two very different UIs. And it all adds up. The end result is a frustrated user. Seriously, this is obvious stuff, speak to anyone in the HCI field.

http://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/d/door_handles.asp

  • Like 2

Tell me how easy it is to use with 50+ programs installed. Do you remember every programs name ? Searching takes longer. Metro is easier to use if you only use maybe 10 programs at most . For people like me who uses dozens of programs a day having all those small squares on your metro start screen is a pain to use.

Why cant they just add the start orb to the desktop app? Its not that hard to do . Wont change much but will make windows 8 much easier for those of us who have tons of programs and do a lot with or desktops.

if you left them cluttered up sure.

organize them in different group then come back. :)

It's badly designed, that's all. It's also a direct result of the merging of two very different UIs. And it all adds up. The end result is a frustrated user. Seriously, this is obvious stuff, speak to anyone in the HCI field.

http://www.cartoonst...oor_handles.asp

I wasn't talking about metro in general but something as simple as launching control panel. :/ For general metro, I don't think it is "badly" designed but that's purely subjective and don't want to get into that.

IMO, this is how metro should be done and will be the only way i would ever use it.

that's actually just rainmeter with a metro looking skin. it shows information, you can set up tiles that start up apps and write notes on. it compliments the desktop experience, not perform a hostile takeover.

dude, that's a massive NSFW :p

The problem is that every reason you come up with is a personal opinion. Subjective. What I don't get is why people care so much that others don't like Win8 metro start screen and why they insist that we have to change just for the sake of change.

If the metro start screen works great for you that's fantastic, I personally don't like it but I do like the start menu in Win7 just fine. Why can't I use one or the other? Why is that a problem for people who like metro? If they give us an option to use the old (current start screen) it won't have any impact on you.

Actually, I don't have an issue with people not liking it. My issue is when people wish to DEBATE the merits of the new OS with their opinions but fail to support their position with any evidence, reasoning, or facts. If somebody simply chimed in and said, "I don't like it." That's their opinion. If when asked why, they wish not to elaborate or only provide a succinct not so elaborative point, that's fine too. But, when they constantly and consistently post that opinion in an attempt to counter the converse, yet fail to support that position with anything other than reiteration, that's where I have an issue.

Also, as to every reason I come up with being subjective, that would be incorrect. Now, where I use comparatives and superlatives, or simply say I like it, that's opinionated. But, when asked to explain things you can do with the Start Screen in 8 that the Start Menu in 7 and prior can't do, those are factual items. Being asked to list the new aspects which are an upgrade to 7. Not subjective. None of these things are. They are factually based on what Microsoft themselves have said they have improved upon.

  • Like 1

My main problem is that the start screen shows me explorer based applications, and that the search on windows 7 start menu was more comprehensive than the start screen one.

Basically, the start screen should ONLY be able to do start screen stuff, explorer should only do explorer stuff.

An easy way to solve this issue for DESKTOP USE ONLY is to return the start orb, but still keep the edge thing for the start screen, and to solve the winkey issue, we hold it for start screen, and tap it for start menu, from WITHIN EXPLORER.

From start screen a quick click will open the start screen again, and a long click will take you to desktop.

And we should just remove the desktop view from arm based tablets, seeing as x86 applications aren't compatible on arm based tablets and this compatibility layer is just completely pointless.

As for x86 tablets, we know that the desktop environment isn't great for touch, so it might as well be removed here.

I wasn't talking about metro in general but something as simple as launching control panel. :/

Me too...

Try sitting a user in front of a Windows 8 machine and telling her to change the system language. First of all, no discoverability. Second of all, inconsistency, confusing conceptual model (on the Start screen the Settings charm displays 'Start' and below that 'Settings', you have to know that the 'Settings' charm is application specific, and that 'Start' is an individual app, and so 'Settings' will get you into the settings for the Start screen. On the other hand, if you're using IE on the desktop, the settings charm doesn't display settings for IE, but for something called 'Desktop'. It doesn'T display a link to 'settings' though, but to something called 'control panel'. At the same time there's always a link to "More PC settings", even on the desktop, but the 'more PC settings' view actually shows less settings than the 'Control Panel'. If you're on the start screen and choose 'more PC settings' and try to change the language, you're transported over to the control panel on the desktop. Are you starting to get the problem with this? Yes, I understand the designers' conceptual model behind all of this, that doesn't make it any less convoluted, and certainly doesn't make it any easier for the 'regular Joe' to build a mental model of it in the first place.

In fact, even I get confused deciding whether I have to go into 'more PC settings' or 'Control Panel' and whether the 'Control Panel' link will be available in the settings charm (depending on whether I'm using a desktop app or not). And I even accidentally enter the settings for the Start screen instead of the global system settings. It says "Start" and "Settings" after all. Would make sense, especially when we used to enter the control panel by pressing "Start" and then "Control Panel".

So when there are more apps to cover everyone's usage can I use metro start screen not in "full screen" ? If no, then it doesn't matter how many apps they have. If yes, then it might actually be useful.

Until then why do we need a different way to perform the tasks we do now? "It's different".

It's better. The taskbar is usually in the way, just taking up space, and get a message on WLM while it's set to autohide and it keeps it on top blocking a UI element you need to interact with. Now you can switch between open apps with the task switcher, or get access to far more than you ever could with the taskbar or the desktop along with live information that allows you to forego having to launch an app at all.

It only comes up when you want it allowing you to focus on whatever task you're doing otherwise and holds far more than it previously could. It's objectively better.

For the people that claim Windows 8 is easier to use, and especially the original poster who claims that it is "easier to use and understand than any previous Windows Interface" how would you actually explain the concept of settings to someone who's never used the system before. Just conceptually. As far as I can see, the user actually has to deal with four different categories of settings:

- Application specific settings for Desktop apps: Not entirely predictable how these can be accessed, but at least the same way as on W7 . So this shouldn't be entirely problematic for users of earlier versions of Windows

- Application specific settings for Metro apps, with the Desktop itself and the Start screen each counting as Metro applications: These are presented in a predictable way, yet the user needs to learn that a globally available "first-level" settings icon actually provides settings for the current app (which might be a problem on the Start screen especially, with the header only saying 'Start'), excluding apps on the Desktop, where instead the Desktop itself counts as an app.

- "More PC setting" (i.e. system-wide Metro settings): Can be reached using the same mechanism as Metro-app-specific settings

- Even more PC settings (i.e. 'Control Panel', which is also listed as an application specific setting for the Desktop, yet actually includes system-wide settings and not just settings for the desktop 'app'): It is not listed under the system-wide settings icon unless the Desktop is the currently active 'Metro app'.

I'd honestly appreciate it if someone gave a more concise yet comprehensive explanation of the different categories of settings in Windows 8. Or if someone could explain why this is altogether easier than Windows 7 (not to speak of OS X).

That's an issue with Windows 8 being in a transitional stage to provide backwards compatibility. If you're just using Metro, the confusion of handling things differently in legacy mode and Metro isn't there.

Yes, switching back and forth is annoying and inconsistent, but the problem is with the switching not with Metro. Metro by itself is easier to use than legacy by itself.

  • Like 3

For the people that claim Windows 8 is easier to use, and especially the original poster who claims that it is "easier to use and understand than any previous Windows Interface" how would you actually explain the concept of settings to someone who's never used the system before. Just conceptually. As far as I can see, the user actually has to deal with four different categories of settings:

- Application specific settings for Desktop apps: Not entirely predictable how these can be accessed, but at least the same way as on W7 . So this shouldn't be entirely problematic for users of earlier versions of Windows

- Application specific settings for Metro apps, with the Desktop itself and the Start screen each counting as Metro applications: These are presented in a predictable way, yet the user needs to learn that a globally available "first-level" settings icon actually provides settings for the current app (which might be a problem on the Start screen especially, with the header only saying 'Start'), excluding apps on the Desktop, where instead the Desktop itself counts as an app.

- "More PC setting" (i.e. system-wide Metro settings): Can be reached using the same mechanism as Metro-app-specific settings

- Even more PC settings (i.e. 'Control Panel', which is also listed as an application specific setting for the Desktop, yet actually includes system-wide settings and not just settings for the desktop 'app'): It is not listed under the system-wide settings icon unless the Desktop is the currently active 'Metro app'.

I'd honestly appreciate it if someone gave a more concise yet comprehensive explanation of the different categories of settings in Windows 8. Or if someone could explain why this is altogether easier than Windows 7 (not to speak of OS X).

I think you are overanalyzing and trying to find faults where there isn't one. Settings displays settings relevant to whatever is currently on the screen and then More settings takes you to "metro control panel". The extra control panel for desktop app (Microsoft had clarified it initially that desktop is now like an app) is probably just for convenience.

There aren't four variations. You are overthinking a bit too much.

geez, people...it's just a prototype, it hasn't taken over the world yet....and believe me....BELIEVE ME....Microsoft IS listening (probably for the first time since the DOS to NT transition)...and they're fixing it...perfection takes a lifetime...this is just a preview for pete's sake! Calm down please! It has to get better (not that it's that bad if you know how to properly work a keyboart/mouse)....they're just (Microsoft) looking at different angles for the future Windows to be better for the consumer....this doesn't mean it's a finished product, but rather a "preview" of things to come eventually....don't like it? as of this minute, stick with vista, 7, or XP, nothing's stopping anyone. The only thing that's certain, is that everything changes.....you can either go with it and accept it, or you can stay in the past...or accept another person's opinion....give it some time, is what I say....it'll get "better", as long as folks can "re" learn the keyboard shortcuts that makes geeks....well, geeks. If you can't deal with geeks, and I mean REAL geeks, then maybe neowin isn't the proper place for one's self.....

edit: I didn't mean to step on anyone's toes or offend anyone, let me fix it like I meant it, just use what works for you. Neowin isn't the place for petty arguments....not like this, anyway...unless your'e ready to back up your words with links/experience..just sayin'....(tired of seeing endless, countless troll bait threads....enough already...if you can't handle windows 8, just stay away)

I think you are overanalyzing and trying to find faults where there isn't one. Settings displays settings relevant to whatever is currently on the screen and then More settings takes you to "metro control panel". The extra control panel for desktop app (Microsoft had clarified it initially that desktop is now like an app) is probably just for convenience.

There aren't four variations. You are overthinking a bit too much.

Not overanalyzing, he's thinking to intuitively ;>. You see, all the usability studies that went into perfecting Windows 7's UI are not now suddenly VOID because Microsoft needs to enter the tablet space. Metro/Desktop Hybrid isn't bad or unusable, though it is kind of silly and cheap feeling going back and forth and the cheesey previous app bar (charm bar actually looks OK). It's compared to a UI that Microsoft invested millions studying and fine tuning. It was honed for the desktop/keybaord/mouse. That's why it sucked on tablets. Microsoft tried that and it failed. Now they're trying their tablet UI on the desktop.

Apple chose a much wiser path, the desktop is in tact, and they incorporated enough of the Tablet UI to provide consistency. MS could have done that, they chose not too.

Not overanalyzing, he's thinking to intuitively ;>. You see, all the usability studies that went into perfecting Windows 7's UI are not now suddenly VOID because Microsoft needs to enter the tablet space. Metro/Desktop Hybrid isn't bad or unusable, though it is kind of silly and cheap feeling going back and forth and the cheesey previous app bar (charm bar actually looks OK). It's compared to a UI that Microsoft invested millions studying and fine tuning. It was honed for the desktop/keybaord/mouse. That's why it sucked on tablets. Microsoft tried that and it failed. Now they're trying their tablet UI on the desktop.

Apple chose a much wiser path, the desktop is in tact, and they incorporated enough of the Tablet UI to provide consistency. MS could have done that, they chose not too.

You completely sidetracked the discussion. And to answer your point, do you think Microsoft is doing this change without any usability studies?

There aren't four variations. You are overthinking a bit too much.

Maybe I'm counting wrong?

desktopappsettings.pngappsettings.pngpcsettings.pngcontrolpanel.png

geez, people...it's just a prototype

A prototype would have been built much earlier in the development process. We're maybe half a year away from release. This isn't a prototype.

That's an issue with Windows 8 being in a transitional stage to provide backwards compatibility. If you're just using Metro, the confusion of handling things differently in legacy mode and Metro isn't there.

True. And, for the record, I don't have a problem with Metro. In fact, I keep saying that it is a fine tablet OS and probably works somewhat well for simple computing on a Desktop PC as well (although it is far from the optimal solution).

Calling it 'transitional' though, assumes that everybody is transitioning from Desktop to Metro apps. I certainly won't be. But if that was in my future, I wouldn't see the point of using a Desktop PC/laptop anymore. I'd just be using a real tablet. In fact, I'm already using one, and it can't replace my desktop PC usage. I suspect I'm not alone in that respect. Which means that this issue isn't going to go away anytime soon. In fact, this is what they mean by a 'no compromise' solution. Nothing is taken away (except the Start menu ;) ). The problem is, that you're introducing complexity this way, which runs counter to the goal of what Metro is all about.

And, honestly, this is not really about me. I'm actually trying to figure out who they are targeting this at. I for one, am trying to have a real discussion about this, yet most of what I hear as a response is, "it's not finished", "you don't have to use it", "I like it", "it's perfect this way". On the one hand, people say it will still improve, on the other hand, they are saying that there's nothing to be improved. Which is it?

Maybe I'm counting wrong?

desktopappsettings.pngappsettings.pngpcsettings.pngcontrolpanel.png

A prototype would have been built much earlier in the development process. We're maybe half a year away from release. This isn't a prototype.

True. And, for the record, I don't have a problem with Metro. In fact, I keep saying that it is a fine tablet OS and probably works somewhat well for simple computing on a Desktop PC as well (although it is far from the optimal solution).

Calling it 'transitional' though, assumes that everybody is transitioning from Desktop to Metro apps. I certainly won't be. But if that was in my future, I wouldn't see the point of using a Desktop PC/laptop anymore. I'd just be using a real tablet. In fact, I'm already using one, and it can't replace my desktop PC usage. I suspect I'm not alone in that respect. Which means that this issue isn't going to go away anytime soon. In fact, this is what they mean by a 'no compromise' solution. Nothing is taken away (except the Start menu ;) ). The problem is, that you're introducing complexity this way, which runs counter to the goal of what Metro is all about.

And, honestly, this is not really about me. I'm actually trying to figure out who they are targeting this at. I for one, am trying to have a real discussion about this, yet most of what I hear as a response is, "it's not finished", "you don't have to use it", "I like it", "it's perfect this way". On the one hand, people say it will still improve, on the other hand, they are saying that there's nothing to be improved. Which is it?

See, I still believe that for 90% of the people Win8 will actually make their lives easier. Assuming there are enough apps in the Windows Store. Most users really only use their PC's for browsing, email, playing music or video's and the occasional game.

So I think these people will barely ever get thrown back into the desktop. There will be a small learning curve because we've been used to the start menu for about 17 years. But once people get it, they will feel at home on the desktop, tablet and phone if they stick to the same ecosystem. And that's what MS is really after.

Sadly for the power users, at the moment it's a bit jarring jumping from Metro to the Desktop and back, but I actually enjoy Win8.

MS also never said they expect everybody to move to the Metro environment. They realize there are power users, who want heaps of resizable windows, and that's why the Desktop is still there in it's full glory.

From all the posts I've read so far about Win 8 I can only come to this conclusion: If you have no issue with a full start screen you will love Win8, If you feel that takes the focus away from your work you will hate it.

I just wish people would try to look at the bigger picture MS is trying to create before complaining.

Resizable Metro apps just won't work because they would never go in a suspended status that way which uses to much memory and battery power, so that will not fly on a tablet. There are heaps of little things people are complaining about, that just don't make sense in the larger picture MS is trying to create.

So that's my 2 cents for now

You completely sidetracked the discussion. And to answer your point, do you think Microsoft is doing this change without any usability studies?

Actually this time around, yes. I think the only usability study they're interested in is that Metro worked on phones, will most likely work on tablets, and given the current market, their needs, and Apple's headstart, they need it to be on the Desktop. I don't believe any usability study done by a third party will show that Metro needed to be on the desktop in this manner, nor is it more efficient or effective than Windows 7 Explorer UI.

I don't think it will change much by RTM, but it's hard for me to believe they would release it the way it is. Some have indicated it has already change significantly for the better claimining NDA. We can only hope.

Not sidetracking, simply explaining why the poster who created the response which led to mine was "not" overanalyzing. You can not separate why Metro is on the desktop where IMO it is clearly out of place from an assertion that it is ineffective or at the least, inefficient there.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Hello, Hope all is well. I am in UK.  
    • I'm not happy with myself for it, but I've gone and got hold of it. Just another 45 minutes and I'll be Bond, James Bond. In my defence, IO's Hitman series is awesome, and I'm a sucker for 007. So while it might seem a bit simplified compared to Hitman, I'm sure I'll be right at home.
    • Or just check the script yourself ^^. I hate having a Microsoft account tied to my windows install.
    • 007 First Light review: Satisfying spy adventure that James Bond needed by Pulasthi Ariyasinghe I have fond memories of classic James Bond games from the Electronic Arts era. Using high-tech gadgets, sneaking into parties, and dispatching bad guys were wildly exciting activities for my younger self. In recent years, Bond games have entirely disappeared, alongside the super spy genre. Fast forward to 2020, imagine my surprise when IO Interactive announced it had secured the Bond IP to make a game. Considering the studio’s Hitman history, this project is one I keenly kept an eye on. Six years later, 007 First Light is finally here, and after spending time inside this globe-trotting adventure, I can safely say that my excitement for this developer’s take on this universe was not unfounded. IO has taken lessons it has learned from Hitman and combined them with what I would expect from a directed cinematic experience like James Bond. I have refrained from mentioning major plot points to save you from story spoilers in this review. This is an original story that doesn’t tie into any movies, so there isn’t an expectation of knowing the backstory or the decades of movies either. Bond, James Bond When 007 First Light begins, Bond is just Bond. There isn’t a spy angle, fancy gadgets, or even a secret mission. The introductory mission is framed to show how James Bond handled himself and how he does not care about the odds when it comes to saving lives. It’s a gorgeous level as well, showing off an island scattered with cliffs in the middle of a storm. Looking back, this is probably the best-looking level in the game, with IO showing off all its abilities with its custom engine, Glacier. But my favorite ended up being the follow-up to this level. Once the United Kingdom's foreign intelligence agency, MI6, recruits our daring youngster into its super-spy “00” program, training begins. However, instead of treading through the same tutorial missions where the game teaches you to run and jump and drive, IO opted for a montage, and it’s amazing. The scenes cut between Bond practicing and improving his marksmanship, parkour, hand-to-hand combat, and driving as weeks go by in his training. What impressed me here was the lack of any loading screens or stutters as scenes instantly switched to different locations entirely, as if I was watching a movie. This creativity is a trend I noticed in most levels, where there is some sort of gameplay or choreography mechanic being introduced to keep things interesting. Soon, the rest of the cast is introduced, bringing other agents that our favorite secret agent will be working with, the scientists and engineers that build MI6’s spy gadgets, as well as higher-ranking officers that either appreciate or (at best) tolerate Bond’s rebellious attitude. It’s a tight cast, all with incredibly good voice acting and personalities that quickly grew on me. The casting for Bond himself is also an excellent one. From showing his iconic soft spot for women to the condescending smiles that get a rise out of enemies, I had no issues getting immersed into this universe as this new face of James Bond. The missions take place in a wide range of locations as MI6 sends Bond to tackle dangers that are growing everywhere from the UK to Africa. These aren’t unrelated adventures where MI6 is sending secret agents, which is an angle I would love to see in another game, but a part of a bigger conspiracy affecting the entire world. Some of the twists and turns were all too predictable, and the character that Lenny Kravitz played made me cringe a little too much. But all in all, I enjoyed the campaign’s storyline that sets the stage for this new agent joining the illustrious “00” program. Plenty of Possibilities The third-person style of IO Interactive fits this role quite well. Bond is presented as a master at hand-to-hand combat as well as firearms, while also having a knack for being stealthy when required. Most sections of missions have a lot of freedom. This means I could beat up every goon and security guard on the way to an objective, slip past them without sounding a single alarm, or do a mix of both. My sessions usually end up with the third option because I tend to be impatient about waiting for a patrol to move. Drawing from its Hitman genes, the developer almost always gives multiple routes for going through missions. Levels can be massive, sometimes sporting hundreds of NPCs going their own ways and having conversations. If my objective is to break into a security room on the third floor, I could look around for roof access, eavesdrop on conversations to find out where someone lost a key, create a distraction and pickpocket a guard for a keycard, sneak in through the vents, or simply kick down the offending door. I enjoyed the variety on offer, especially because the same solutions didn’t usually show up in different missions. Before heading out into a secret MI6 escapade, the gadget specialist of the branch walks Bond through the organization's latest and greatest achievements. This can be cool little devices like a laser built into the watch, a phone that fires poison darts, or a camera that emits a powerful shockwave. The choice of what can be taken into the mission is up to the player. I could usually find fresh routes or get out of tough situations with a punch or two, so I never had the feeling of missing out by not choosing the right equipment. It’s still a fun practice. Choosing the armaments before a mission enhanced the super spy feeling quite a bit. As I mentioned, stealth comes in as a very viable option for most of the missions, letting Bond sneak past foes or knock them out silently. While it is satisfying to clear entire areas of goons and walk away without any alarms, the way of accomplishing this could have been done better. Bond can lure enemies, sneak up and knock them out, or use a gadget to disorient them before dealing a nasty blow. Bodies cannot be moved or hidden afterward either. It’s a very simple system, which I wish were more exciting to pull off. Perhaps more stealth-orientated gadgets, distraction options, or multi-takedowns could have helped here, I think. Getting caught while attempting to be in stealth does not mean a game over. Other than getting into a fist fight, an interesting twist of 007 First Light is the bluffing option. While an enemy is confused as to what you are doing in a restricted location, Bond has the option to improvise and persuade them that you are exactly where you’re supposed to be. These are fun little dynamic interactions with unique dialog depending on the mission and location, giving a few extra moments for Bond to go past suspicious guards smoothly. It’s the first time I’ve witnessed this system in a game, and I hope to see more. License to Kill Bond isn’t just dealing with security guards or civilians. From time to time, entire gangs of gun-toting mercenaries show up in levels looking to take down our protagonist. It is then that License to Kill mode is activated for Bond, letting him use firearms with no restrictions. I was surprised by just how tight gunplay is in 007 First Light. The weapons feel powerful and satisfying to fire, with single bullets capable of taking down an enemy with a headshot. Ammo is scarce, and enemies don’t drop weapons with full magazines most of the time. This forces a hectic kind of gameplay where I am always advancing towards enemies to take their weapons after they are downed. Things like shooting legs to immobilize, aiming at the hands to make their weapon go flying, blowing up nearby fire extinguishers for cover, and using gadgets to halt a goon in their tracks while I reload, make up enjoyable levels. I had to hold back my disappointment when the enemy count in these action sequences dropped to zero and I had to go non-lethal again. Speaking of action sequences, First Light isn’t just offering sandbox levels to complete at the player’s own leisure either. Each level comes with specific linear and directed scenes to move the story forward and put Bond in tight situations. These usually end up with high-octane chases or driving sections, offering the chance to witness chaining explosions, hails of gunfire, and scripted parkour scenes that remind me of Mission Impossible movies more than Bond. Elements like seeing James Bond jump out of a plane without a parachute or drive through buildings in London inside a trash truck were fantastic and always left me at a high point when finishing a mission. The classic James Bond theme is sprinkled in here too, which only happens a handful of times in the game, but at just the right moments. Visuals and Performance Compared to Unreal Engine 5 games we are seeing nowadays, 007 First Light isn’t flexing a huge amount of realism when it comes to graphics. The models, textures, and effects all feel a little dated, with the starting mission that I mentioned being the most visually striking. However, the complete lack of stutters, the hundreds of NPCs that can be on screen without a single hitch, massive sandbox levels, and smooth transitions between them all play a part in making this an immensely immersive and complex experience. The in-engine cutscenes are gorgeous as well, offering an upgraded visual style and model detail over the gameplay sections. Animations are one aspect that jumps out at me about any new game, and First Light has nailed what a third-person action game should feel like. Walking, sneaking, and running all have a heaviness to them that I appreciate. Whenever Bond moves past a wall or a ledge, his arms reach out to lightly hold those structures until he moves away. NPCs actually react to my character and move out of the way. Even during melee combat or takedown animations, the fists impacting a body or a head hitting a wall all have that same weight. Even the more frivolous animations, like catching a gun in midair or chucking an empty one at a goon (yes, you can do that), are satisfying to pull off. Of course, the in-engine cutscene animations are remarkably well done too, with facial animations and the upgraded model details improving my engagement with the characters. I have an AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT 16GB paired with an eight-core Ryzen 7 3700X and 32GB of RAM, with the game running at 1440p resolution. Deciding to completely max out all the graphics options gave me a range of frame rates between 60 and 100 depending on the scene and level. While I did try to enable AMD FSR, which bumped up the frame rates by a good 20% at Quality mode, IO Interactive’s implementation of the technology wasn’t that great. Every corner and edge in levels began shimmering, and I was also seeing smearing issues in fast-moving sections. The title seemingly uses the older generation FSR 3.1 and not the machine learning-assisted FSR 4, leading to these artifacts. Unfortunately, there isn't a way to manually upgrade this right now either. I opted to turn off the upscaling and play the game in native 1440p to avoid problems. I would say the FPS range I was getting was an acceptable one for a single-player action game for my setup. I do wish there were an FOV slider option in the settings. While the camera is far enough back for my tastes in most situations in this third-person adventure, at times the perspective is far too close. When trying to look around quickly and spot targets, I realized I was getting a slight headache at times due to the use of an almost over-the-shoulder close-up camera. Conclusion Being James Bond in 007 First Light is a treat. Traveling around the world chasing conspiracies, using high-tech gadgets disguised as everyday accessories, and improvising on the spot to fool foes all give a fantastic feeling of being a super spy. For an origin story, IO Interactive has done a great job at introducing the character and his motives for doing what he does. The satisfying combat animation and fantastic voice acting are definitely high points, with the License to Kill moments being my favorite. Not being able to move bodies and the simplistic stealth of mechanics does hurt its presentation a little. The NPC logic and intelligence is easy to manipulate and trick, repeating the same actions over and over again if I keep making distractions. The lack of an FOV slider was also a pain (quite literally) at times, and the FSR implementation is quite poor. These are things I hope the studio will improve upon with updates. Even with its faults, IO Interactive and James Bond are a match made in heaven. The studio knows how to make a main character that oozes charm and competency while also leaning heavily into its Hitman experience to make gigantic levels with what looks like hundreds of NPCs roaming around. Being an origin story, IO’s Bond has a way to go before he becomes the highly effective agent we see in the movie world. I am hoping the studio will continue this series alongside its Hitman ventures going forward, just so we get to experience the journey for longer. 007 First Light is available on PC (Steam, Epic Games Store, and Xbox PC), Xbox Series X|S, and PlayStation 5 for $69.99. This review was conducted on the PC version of the game provided by IO Interactive.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Collaborator
      conkir earned a badge
      Collaborator
    • Rising Star
      olavinto went up a rank
      Rising Star
    • One Month Later
      lamborghiniv10 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      lamborghiniv10 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Reacting Well
      X-No-file earned a badge
      Reacting Well
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      504
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      271
    3. 3
      +Edouard
      75
    4. 4
      Skyfrog
      74
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      71
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!