Recommended Posts

I've never really understood how people can be so loyal over a graphics binding API, in the end it all comes down to driver quality and how good the hardware is. The original blog post about the performance difference puts it down entirely to the Linux drivers and how Source uses OpenGL compared to Direct3D. It's not that OpenGL is "faster" than Direct3D, it's that Source spends a few microseconds extra when it talks Direct3D.

I would bet the vast majority of people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a game using Direct3D and a game using OpenGL, simply because there should be no graphical difference if it's done right, the people who would notice a difference are those with buggy/non-existent drivers, or those that checked what the game engine uses.

Indeed Max Norris. Like I said previously, I'm all for gaming on Linux if it is genuinely faster, but this 1 flawed comparison isn't going to convince me. I'm not going to make the switch just on the thought/hope that it's faster like the Linux fanboys do, I prefer solid statistical evidence. Bring on a fair testing ground of OpenGL beating DX11/11.1 please with the exact same feature set.

I'm sorry but that's kind of a given considering it's pushing the GPU to do a lot more visually than DX9 games do. Uses a lot more memory and requires a lot more computational power to pull it off.. yea its going to require more horsepower to run. Newer stuff (games, apps, whatever) typically always need more horsepower to run, this is nothing new or specific to gaming, or even DirectX. I'm sure throwing a crapton of work at OpenGL 4 is going to make it a tad slower than OpenGL 1 too dont you think?

And so you'll get an even lower fps. So by using Direct3D 9, that fps is higher than it would be with 10/11. That was my whole point.

Ah, no, sorry again, fully supports DirectX 11. Look for yourself. Even shows visually how it makes it looks a lot better than DX9. They're embracing DX11 head on.

http://mycryengine.c...dex.php?conid=8

The whole engine isn't built around DX11 though. The console and PC versions will ship with DX9 rendering. And like Crysis 2, the DX11 will not be enabled by default.

Again, see above, that's a given.. more math makes more work. (You do know that most DX11 games have an option to turn those visuals off for those with underpowered GPU's yea?)

Again, the point is, by using DX9, Valve is actually giving Direct3D an advantage because it doesn't use the latest technologies, and therefore as you said, it's less demanding for the system. If DX10/11 was used, I'm sure the fps disparity would be even greater.

Congrats on one benchmark being faster. I can show some recent published benchmarks that's completely the opposite where Linux falls short in performance.

Break out the benchmarks ;) I'm always interested provided they are fair, balanced, and recent. And if you're talking about the Unigine benchmarks, I should say that some of the performance bottlenecks that were fixed after Valve's bug reports also apply to that engine, so I'd wait for the fixes to hit mesa before parading them.

The original blog post about the performance difference puts it down entirely to the Linux drivers and how Source uses OpenGL compared to Direct3D. It's not that OpenGL is "faster" than Direct3D, it's that Source spends a few microseconds extra when it talks Direct3D.

Some of it is down to GNU/Linux and some of it OpenGL (it runs faster than Direct3D on Windows too). And the extra time wasn't spent in the source engine, but the Direct3D batch processing in Microsoft's code.

I would bet the vast majority of people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a game using Direct3D and a game using OpenGL, simply because there should be no graphical difference if it's done right, the people who would notice a difference are those with buggy/non-existent drivers, or those that checked what the game engine uses.

On lower spec machines, a 20% fps difference can make the difference between playable and unplayable.

Indeed Max Norris. Like I said previously, I'm all for gaming on Linux if it is genuinely faster, but this 1 flawed comparison isn't going to convince me. I'm not going to make the switch just on the thought/hope that it's faster like the Linux fanboys do, I prefer solid statistical evidence. Bring on a fair testing ground of OpenGL beating DX11/11.1 please with the exact same feature set.

This is not a flawed comparison:

1.- The blog post is about the performance increase on Linux from 6 to 315 FPS thanks to the work by Valve and the GPU vendors.

2.- The Windows 7 stats are there for reference. If you are working on improving performance on your Linux port you surely want to compare with your previously working implementation on another platform.

3.- So far I haven't seen anywhere what exact OpenGL version they are using on Linux. The claims about Valve using OpenGL 4 are just assumptions.

Long story short: there's no need to get butthurt, this is not a competition. They just released numbers to show how their work in these last months reflect on their ongoing Linux implementation compared to what was a "final", stable implementation (which just happened to be on Windows).

The whole engine isn't built around DX11 though. The console and PC versions will ship with DX9 rendering. And like Crysis 2, the DX11 will not be enabled by default.

That was kind of a given considering not everbody has the capability to run something that demanding yet.. I was just commenting to your quote where you said that it was not supporting it at all, which wasn't true, they're fully taking advantage of it.

Again, the point is, by using DX9, Valve is actually giving Direct3D an advantage because it doesn't use the latest technologies, and therefore as you said, it's less demanding for the system. If DX10/11 was used, I'm sure the fps disparity would be even greater.

You do know that by using DX11 doesn't automatically make it slower right? It's only when you start taking advantage of those new hardare specific features in the API that it starts to push the hardware more.. never mind some of the new features that actually improve performance even on DirectX 9 generation cards, little things like the new multitreading resource handling that works better with multicore CPU's than DX9, stuff like that?

Break out the benchmarks ;) I'm always interested provided they are fair and balanced.

Well I would think so since they're done by Phoronix, a Linux site. And before somebody points out the obvious, I did say that some are faster, some are slower, here's a couple of the faster ones from May. Universally saying one OS is faster than another is just fanboyism. And I'm personally waiting for a fair and balanced benchmark for this one specific case as well, it's not like Valve has an agenda or anything...

benchmark3x.png

benchmark2.png

benchmark1.png

That was kind of a given considering not everbody has the capability to run something that demanding yet.. I was just commenting to your quote where you said that it was not supporting it at all, which wasn't true, they're fully taking advantage of it.

You do know that by using DX11 doesn't automatically make it slower right? It's only when you start taking advantage of those new hardare specific features in the API that it starts to push the hardware more.. never mind some of the new features that actually improve performance even on DirectX 9 generation cards, little things like the new multitreading resource handling that works better with multicore CPU's than DX9, stuff like that?

Well I would think so since they're done by Phoronix, a Linux site. And before somebody points out the obvious, I did say that some are faster, some are slower, here's a couple of the faster ones from May. Universally saying one OS is faster than another is just fanboyism. And I'm personally waiting for a fair and balanced benchmark for this one specific case as well, it's not like Valve has an agenda or anything...

benchmark3x.png

benchmark2.png

benchmark1.png

Well, Ubuntu beats DirectX in two of the three Unigine benchmarks (without any of these recent improvements), but again as I stated before Valve's blog isn't about Linux' performance per se, but about how their recent work in cooperation with GPU vendors has provided awesome results (they went from 6 to 315 FPS).

Well, Ubuntu beats DirectX in two of the three Unigine benchmarks, but again as I stated before Valve's blog isn't about Linux' performance per se, but about how their recent work in cooperation with GPU vendors has provided awesome results (they went from 6 to 315 FPS).

Well I did say it's not 100% faster across the board, and that's just one engine that had the advantage, but again the point was that no single OS is faster than another. Arbitrarily saying "Linux is the best gaming platform ever" just because of one benchmark is absurd, especially when it's not looking at all the factors.

I do agree though, they obviously fixed something that was horribly busted. If they can improve Linux video drivers more (performance and stability) I'm all for that. On my particular hardware anyway, caught between a rock and a hard place.. slower open drivers, or buggy but faster closed drivers. He also says he's going to see if he can apply that same adjustment to DirectX as well.. so right now its apparently a bit one sided.

I've never really understood how people can be so loyal over a graphics binding API, in the end it all comes down to driver quality and how good the hardware is.
Depends on what the API is willing to provide you. Platform/license-wise, OpenGL gets the vote.

the only issue i have with linux and have ever had is the updates / distros so damn many of them every like 6 months you get a major version of your fav. Also its not 100% noob friendly.

Its also very easy to brake linux and it can be a pain in the ass to get working again most the time i just reinstall with windows i never have this issue. If linux had 1 major dev with 1 major build every day 1.5years and updates every now and then and the driver support was good then the OS would be grate. This will never happen though being open source.

You also have things like warentee, tech support issues and stuff.

I do agree though, they obviously fixed something that was horribly busted. If they can improve Linux video drivers more (performance and stability) I'm all for that. On my particular hardware anyway, caught between a rock and a hard place.. slower open drivers, or buggy but faster closed drivers. He also says he's going to see if he can apply that same adjustment to DirectX as well.. so right now its apparently a bit one sided.

That's the point, and that's why going all defensive about the FPS numbers posted on the Valve blog article is an exercise of butthurtness.

This is what they said, exactly:

After this work, Left 4 Dead 2 is running at 315 FPS on Linux. That the Linux version runs faster than the Windows version (270.6) seems a little counter-intuitive, given the greater amount of time we have spent on the Windows version. However, it does speak to the underlying efficiency of the kernel and OpenGL. Interestingly, in the process of working with hardware vendors we also sped up the OpenGL implementation on Windows. Left 4 Dead 2 is now running at 303.4 FPS with that configuration.

So what does this mean?

1.- Working with GPU vendors was great, since they achieved going from 6 to 315 FPS.

2.- The Linux kernel and OpenGL work great, since they managed to get great performance with less effort than they spent on the Windows version.

3.- While working on the Linux port they learned some tricks that also helped to improve Windows performance with OpenGL.

4.- They also found out that there was something going wrong with DirectX, so they can now try to fix that and improve the performance there as well.

If anyone feels like drawing other conclusions from that article and starting a platform war that's his problem. I'm not seeing anything other than an update of the work-in-progress of their port of L4D2 to Linux.

That's the point, and that's why going all defensive about the FPS numbers posted on the Valve blog article is an exercise of butthurtness.

Not sure where you're getting "defensive" and "butthurt" from. Aside from the fact I don't care regardless how fast they make it on Linux as I wouldn't use it anyway, I'm just pointing out the blatantly obvious that this is one benchmark in one scenario, and that other benchmarks show differerent numbers in different situations.. IE pointing out to those that are saying "Linux is universally better at gaming" just because of one benchmark and completely ignoring other factors is just nonsense.

1.- Working with GPU vendors was great, since they achieved going from 6 to 315 FPS.

Again, no arguments, always good when somethings fixed (especially something that was obviously broken badly), I don't give a rats ass which OS it's on. I'm not a fanboy, if they can improve something that's used by other people then by all means that's a good thing.

3.- While working on the Linux port they learned some tricks that also helped to improve Windows performance with OpenGL.

4.- They also found out that there was something going wrong with DirectX, so they can now try to fix that and improve the performance there as well.

And once they actually get the various video drivers adjusted on the Windows side with these improvements lets try that benchmark again. Right now it's a skewed benchmark... we fixed a driver issue on one side, didn't touch the other side, so obviously the other side is inferior. Brilliant.

Do you have a source for the exact OpenGL version they are using or are you just making it up?

To expand on this, we don't even know what version of Direct3D they were running in such a comparison.

Publically released versions of Source only support 9, but there are a number of references to 10 in both dxsupport.cfg, and the existance of shaderapidx10.dll.

So until they release what versions of the APIs they were using, crying that Valve wasn't fair to your beloved Microsoft is futile.

Not only that, but being intellectually dishonest in such a fashion doesn't help Valve make a better product either.

And once they actually get the various video drivers adjusted on the Windows side with these improvements lets try that benchmark again. Right now it's a skewed benchmark... we fixed a driver issue on one side, didn't touch the other side, so obviously the other side is inferior. Brilliant.

That's part of the point though isn't it? If they can directly contribute fixes to the graphic drivers rather than having to go through the vendor and ask them to fix it for them, then that proves that the openness of the Linux ecosystem makes development easier for Valve.

Not sure where you're getting "defensive" and "butthurt" from. Aside from the fact I don't care regardless how fast they make it on Linux as I wouldn't use it anyway, I'm just pointing out the blatantly obvious that this is one benchmark in one scenario, and that other benchmarks show differerent numbers in different situations.. IE pointing out to those that are saying "Linux is universally better at gaming" just because of one benchmark and completely ignoring other factors is just nonsense.

Sorry if it seems that I was pointing at you when talking about "butthurtness", I just meant the overall trend about how a benchmark where Linux beats Windows must be obviously unfair and skewed, more so when this isn't even an actual benchmark but an update about the current state of the port.

And I said "butthurtness" because the whole reason this thread has 15 pages so far is that Linux scored higher. If it hadn't you wouldn't have had so many people trying to make up OpenGL versions and other excuses to try to disprove that, at this point in time, Valve managed to get better performance with L4D2 on Linux than they do on Windows.

Again, no arguments, always good when somethings fixed (especially something that was obviously broken badly), I don't give a rats ass which OS it's on. I'm not a fanboy, if they can improve something that's used by other people then by all means that's a good thing.

That's the spirit (Y)

And once they actually get the various video drivers adjusted on the Windows side with these improvements lets try that benchmark again. Right now it's a skewed benchmark... we fixed a driver issue on one side, didn't touch the other side, so obviously the other side is inferior. Brilliant.

It's not skewed (let alone not being a benchmark): L4D2 on Windows is a final released version while L4D2 on Linux is a yet uncomplete port.

Of course you would always be comparing a port against your released version: the later shows the performance levels you expect to be able to reach with your port.

Also they fixed the OpenGL implementation on both platforms and gave the final numbers they got (303.4 on Windows vs 315 on Linux). The DirectX overhead issue is something they have just spotted, and giving the DirectX results just points that there's something wrong there that they'll have to look into but haven't yet figured out how to mitigate.

...

Some of it is down to GNU/Linux and some of it OpenGL (it runs faster than Direct3D on Windows too). And the extra time wasn't spent in the source engine, but the Direct3D batch processing in Microsoft's code.

...

I assumed the overhead was in Source, since I thought Microsoft would have noticed the performance hit compared to OpenGL, if the issue has been around for a decade. But of course it's always possible for such a small difference to vanish into the "noise"

Valve provided answers to some of the questions posted in this thread in the comments section of their blog (as people were asking those same questions there as well):

The Linux version of Left 4 Dead 2 has all graphical features enabled. Obviously, there are still some bugs we are working on but overall, the stability and quality of the rendering is on par with the Windows version.
Image quality for L4D2 on Linux with OpenGL is on par with L4D2 on Windows with Direct3D.
This test used OpenGL version 3.x.

This is great news.. great work Valve.

The problem with Linux was never the OS - it's light, it's fast. It's all about the apps. Bring the apps and more people will use it!

the only issue i have with linux and have ever had is the updates / distros so damn many of them every like 6 months you get a major version of your fav. Also its not 100% noob friendly.

Its also very easy to brake linux and it can be a pain in the ass to get working again most the time i just reinstall with windows i never have this issue. If linux had 1 major dev with 1 major build every day 1.5years and updates every now and then and the driver support was good then the OS would be grate. This will never happen though being open source.

You also have things like warentee, tech support issues and stuff.

If everyone that's somewhat computer savvy (gamers that use Steam I would consider in this category) just sat down, read some tutorials and got acclimated to the Linux environment, they would find themselves more knowledgeable about the inner workings of a computer and less likely to need to use tech support or warranties (at least for non-hardware issues).

But no, we can't expect people to know how to use a computer.

If everyone that's somewhat computer savvy (gamers that use Steam I would consider in this category) just sat down, read some tutorials and got acclimated to the Linux environment, they would find themselves more knowledgeable about the inner workings of a computer and less likely to need to use tech support or warranties (at least for non-hardware issues).

But no, we can't expect people to know how to use a computer.

Because it's not that simple with Linux.

Also, you don't learn "the inner workings of a computer" with Linux. You just learn about the modules in your distro.

Furthermore, you give up a lot of hardware choices by moving to Linux. Sure, they work on Linux but it's not uncommon for certain features to be non-functioning or non-configurable.

Furthermore, you give up a lot of hardware choices by moving to Linux. Sure, they work on Linux but it's not uncommon for certain features to be non-functioning or non-configurable.

Not if you buy from a GNU/Linux OEM. They ensure the hardware is compatible with the OS. It works the opposite way around as well. If hardware is designed to work in Linux, and you try and use Windows on it, there's no guarantee it will function properly.

I feel sorry for those people genuinely thinking about switching to Linux over some flawed comparison next to hundreds of other benchmarks which say the opposite.

Do you really feel that cool doing 10x more complex stuff to achieve the same?

hundreds of other benchmarks which say the opposite.

Some do, some don't.

It'd be certainly weird to switch just because of L4D2 (unless that's all you played), but if you found that the games you play worked on Linux with about the same performance and you didn't need anything that you couldn't do with Linux already, why shouldn't you at the very least consider switching? Not that you have to, but it's a perfectly reasonable option.

Do you really feel that cool doing 10x more complex stuff to achieve the same?

YMMV, but some of the reasons why I use Linux are:

- It makes my work a whole lot easier.

-The extra options in window management (even simple stuff like alt+drag) that make the environment more comfortable.

- It looks better (not really an important feature, I know, but it's a nice plus).

So no 10x complexity over here (quite the opposite actually).

Again, YMMV.

Not if you buy from a GNU/Linux OEM. They ensure the hardware is compatible with the OS. It works the opposite way around as well. If hardware is designed to work in Linux, and you try and use Windows on it, there's no guarantee it will function properly.

Awesome. Throw away your gaming rig and buy a new one even though OEMs don't really sell gaming-rig Linux PCs.

Also the last bit about hardware designed for Linux not working well in Windows; that is so rare it's almost non-existent in the PC realm.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • 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.
    • [Price Drop] PDF Expert for Mac v3 is still half off by Steven Parker Today's highlighted deal comes via our Apps + Software section of the Neowin Deals store, where for only a limited time you can save 42% on PDF Expert One-Time Purchase. PDFs remain the best way to transmit documents, but editing them isn't possible with standard Mac software. PDF Expert changes that, allowing you to edit PDF text, images, links, and outlines quickly and easily. Typo in a contract? Easy fix. Need to rework a complete section of a document? No problem. PDF Expert provides a series of essential functions that will transform the way you work with documents on your Mac. It recognizes text and OCR, makes edits, and fills out forms. And with the “Enhance” feature powered by AI, it will fix distortions, remove shadows and improve contrast so that even difficult-to-read documents look great. EDIT Change the text. Easily fix typos, update numbers, or add entire paragraphs Insert images. Update logos in a contract or add a new graph to a report Add links. Enrich your PDFs by linking to other pages or external websites ANNOTATE Highlight the important. Make the most valuable content stand out at a glance Comment on PDFs. Add text to PDFs, insert pop-up notes & write your thoughts in the margins Add stamps. Review documents with our set of stamps or create custom stamps for any workflow ORGANIZE Merge PDFs. Combine multiple files into one PDF document Manage pages. Add, delete, rearrange, or rotate PDF pages with ease Split PDFs. Extract pages from PDFs & save them as separate files CONVERT Convert to PDF. Turn JPG, PNG, Word, PPT, and Excel to PDF PDF to Word. Convert PDFs into editable Word documents PDF to image. Turn PDFs into JPG or PNG images PDF to Excel. Convert PDFs into Excel spreadsheets PDF to PPT. Save PDFs as PowerPoint presentations PDF to text. Convert PDFs into editable TXT files FILL OUT Fill out PDF forms. Easily fill out PDF forms by just clicking on them Sign documents. Add your signature to a PDF in a few clicks. Let customers sign documents with handy one-time signatures Redact PDFs. Blackout or erase confidential information from your documents RECOGNIZE TEXT OCR text in PDF. Recognize the text, so you can search, highlight & copy it Enhance scans. Fix distortions, remove shadows & improve contrast Crop & split pages. Split double-page scans into separate pages & remove undesired margins Good to know: Length of access: Lifetime Redemption deadline: redeem your code within 30 days of purchase Access options: Mac Max number of device(s): Unlimited usage on personal macOS devices Version: PDF Expert 3 for Mac (macOS) Updates: Get continuous support and bug fixes. Additional new features may come at an extra cost. PDF Expert One-Time Purchase normally costs $139.99, but you can pick it up for just $69.97 for a limited time, that represents a saving of $70 (50% off). For a full description, specs, and license info, click the link below. Deal Price One time cost now only $69.97 (was $139.99) Although priced in U.S. dollars, this deal is available for digital purchase worldwide. Support queries If you have queries or need support for any of the Neowin Deals, please use the contact form here. Neowin Deals are managed and sold by StackCommerce who represent Neowin on an affiliate basis. We post these because we earn commission on each sale so as not to rely solely on advertising, which many of our readers block. It all helps toward paying staff reporters, servers and hosting costs. Other ways to support Neowin Whitelist Neowin by not blocking our ads Create a free member account to see fewer ads Make a donation to support our day to day running costs Subscribe to Neowin - for $14 a year, or $28 a year for an ad-free experience Disclosure: Neowin benefits from revenue of each sale made through our branded deals site powered by StackCommerce.
  • 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
      Skyfrog
      75
    4. 4
      +Edouard
      75
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      71
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!