"Threshold" to be Called Windows 9, Ship in April 2015


Recommended Posts

This is true, and it's about a different version of the same product.  However many see it as Version A = good,  Version B= sucks.. so make Version C like Version A.

Yep and history tells us that you can get away with a lot just by changing a name. MS gets away with doing fairly little on Win 7 and yet its taken as being this breath of fresh air compared to Vista.

So MS in this case can make some minor changes that do not involve actually fundamentally changing the core of windows, slap a new number on it, and suddenly its a 'breath of fresh air'. Funny how the market works.

Go read the article on the front page. It isn't a surprise considering how whiny P.T. can be when he doesn't get his way.

 

In fact, he said this stuff on Twitter yesterday, and didn't once answer people back as to why he said this. He ran and hid.

 

 

I follow his site and he has this weird habit of posting articles that send the complete opposite in messages.  One day, it seems like he is feeling good about what MS is working on or things to come.  Then the next day, its as bleak as you can think with articles that basically signal the end of MS and everything they do sucks.

 

Its really hard to keep up with his rollercoaster of optimism and pessimism.  

I follow his site and he has this weird habit of posting articles that send the complete opposite in messages.  One day, it seems like he is feeling good about what MS is working on or things to come.  Then the next day, its as bleak as you can think with articles that basically signal the end of MS and everything they do sucks.

 

Its really hard to keep up with his rollercoaster of optimism and pessimism.  

 

Can't it just be that he actually like the direction MS is going (the positive), but that he also acknowledges that in the eye of the consumer MS failed with Win8 (the negative)?

 

That's the way I see it at least

MS going back to the classical old Start Menu would be dumping in the toilet all the research, designs and financial efforts to push Modern UI; now improving Modern UI, on the other hand, is the way to go from now.

Yep and history tells us that you can get away with a lot just by changing a name. MS gets away with doing fairly little on Win 7 and yet its taken as being this breath of fresh air compared to Vista.

So MS in this case can make some minor changes that do not involve actually fundamentally changing the core of windows, slap a new number on it, and suddenly its a 'breath of fresh air'. Funny how the market works.

 

Yes and No.  7 cleaned up Vista a LOT and did have quite a few changes.  8 was a big change for 7 and has (in my opinion) a bad UI for desktops.  I think they need to go back to the 7 style desktop only (for desktop/laptops) ui.  I don't think they will ever surpass 7 unless they do that.

Yes and No.  7 cleaned up Vista a LOT and did have quite a few changes.  8 was a big change for 7 and has (in my opinion) a bad UI for desktops.  I think they need to go back to the 7 style desktop only (for desktop/laptops) ui.  I don't think they will ever surpass 7 unless they do that.

 

But, HOW? When the lines between different devices have blurred, how do you do that? It's impossible for an OS to sit there and guess as to which UI/UX to use. Not to mention, it's inefficient. An OS shouldn't be made to do that.

But, HOW? When the lines between different devices have blurred, how do you do that? It's impossible for an OS to sit there and guess as to which UI/UX to use. Not to mention, it's inefficient. An OS shouldn't be made to do that.

 

Different OS's man.  There is no reason why the Phone team couldn't do all Mobile, and windows team could stick 100% with desktop.  Alternatively provide it as an option for the user OR allow for free downloads of programs such as Modern Mix or Start Menu Revivers.  That way there is no need to pay for a 3rd party app to add functionality that should be native.

 

Hell, to make it easy they could even do it right so that the only difference is the UI.. the underlying code would be the same.  As has been proven by the third party apps, there is no need to remove code or change code as everything that people want on 8 can be done with 3rd party programs that don't directly affect the system itself.

 

Trust me, no one would EVER mistake my desktop pc as a phone, or as a mobile device.  No one would mistake a laptop as a tablet.. so the only blur.. is between a tablet and a phone.  Which could be handled 100% by plugged in hardware.  If a mouse or keyboard is detected, it will default to a desktop.. if none then it checks for some other device or general display size.   It's all 100% possible, and is being done right now by other companies.

  • Like 2

Different OS's man.  There is no reason why the Phone team couldn't do all Mobile, and windows team could stick 100% with desktop.  Alternatively provide it as an option for the user OR allow for free downloads of programs such as Modern Mix or Start Menu Revivers.  That way there is no need to pay for a 3rd party app to add functionality that should be native.

 

Hell, to make it easy they could even do it right so that the only difference is the UI.. the underlying code would be the same.  As has been proven by the third party apps, there is no need to remove code or change code as everything that people want on 8 can be done with 3rd party programs that don't directly affect the system itself.

 

Trust me, no one would EVER mistake my desktop pc as a phone, or as a mobile device.  No one would mistake a laptop as a tablet.. so the only blur.. is between a tablet and a phone.  Which could be handled 100% by plugged in hardware.  If a mouse or keyboard is detected, it will default to a desktop.. if none then it checks for some other device or general display size.   It's all 100% possible, and is being done right now by other companies.

Having different OSs too, is inefficient. It drives up support and development costs. And I'm not sure why you would think people would mistake a desktop as a tablet just because of the UI. There's no rule stating a desktop computer can't run Modern apps on a desktop. Trying to differentiate devices isn't going to work, not when A) you're unifying your services, and B) the market is driving digital convergence - and has been for the past ten years. People don't want multiple devices.

 

And no, "so the only blur.. is between a tablet and a phone" is a fallacy. You have touch enable all in one desktops, you have touch enabled laptops, you have laptops that can separate into tablets, you have desktops that can separate into tablets, and you also have tablets can can transform into workstations. Developing separate OSs for all these devices isn't an option. MSFT did this with Windows 7, and they all failed. You're not going to get a different outcome trying again. They'll fail each time.

Can't it just be that he actually like the direction MS is going (the positive), but that he also acknowledges that in the eye of the consumer MS failed with Win8 (the negative)?

 

That's the way I see it at least

 

 

Its not just that though.  Literally he will write an article praising WP and then the next day will be an article about putting it down.  Same thing happened with Windows RT tablets.  He bashed them all he can, and then there will be an article talking it up.

 

It would be one thing if he just said that he liked the direction but not the execution, but he doesn't.  He will praise both and then put both down. 

 

He is certainly entitled to his opinions and most of the time he has plenty of facts to back up his position, its just that his position seems very flimsy.

 

 

 

Yes and No.  7 cleaned up Vista a LOT and did have quite a few changes.  8 was a big change for 7 and has (in my opinion) a bad UI for desktops.  I think they need to go back to the 7 style desktop only (for desktop/laptops) ui.  I don't think they will ever surpass 7 unless they do that.

 

7 did not fundamentally change windows compared to Vista.  The changes amounted to cosmetic ones with features tweaked and visual options altered. 

 

8 has a desktop ui and a metro ui.  I don't get why the desktop ui for 8 is so ignored as if all there is to use is the metro ui.  The metro ui is not what powers the windows 8 desktop.  The windows 8 desktop is windows 7 with tweaks to various features.  The big change is the visual integration of the metro ui.

 

If MS allowed you to disable all features that are part of the metro ui addition such as the start screen and the charms bar, the 8 desktop would be windows 7 with various small improvements.  So MS doesn't even need to go back to anything, just offer the darn option to turn things off.  8.1 added some of the options you guys want.  It allows you to boot straight to the desktop (I use that) and it allows you to disable the hot corner functions while in the desktop.  All MS has to do is pop in a classic start menu and add the option to completely disable the charms bar while in the desktop and your done. 

 

My point is, Windows 9 could be fundamentally no different from 8, but if they make some relatively small changes as I mentioned, suddenly the OS is brand new.  Now the question is, lets say they do that, will you adopt it?  Will others that have voiced their disinterest in anything Metro being on a desktop adopt it?  I don't know honestly.  People say there is this huge groundswell of customers just waiting for say the Start Menu or making Metro optional, that sales will have a huge turn around.  I have a hard time believing that personally.  But maybe if they make these changes, the internet community will get behind Win 9 and create positive buzz. 

Having different OSs too, is inefficient. It drives up support and development costs. 

I think it drives Microsoft's revenue down to produce an OS that has serious usability issues on desktop PCs, i.e. desktop PC users just don't buy it. It also drives Microsoft's support costs up to say "if you want Windows 7, just stick with Windows 7", because then Microsoft has to provide more support for Windows 7. I don't think MS wants to keep supporting 7 for as long as XP, so they'd better provide Windows 7 users with a sensible replacement pretty soon.

 

Note I'm not suggesting actually two completely separate OSes, but simply different UXes for the different form factors. Windows 8.1 is awfully close to that in fact, short of a desktop-friendly version of the Start Screen and setting file associations defaults to desktop applications.

 

In any case, as long as the two environments are supported, I don't see how it's massively more expensive to provide a seamless experience on the Desktop. Start8 didn't cost billions to make.

  • Like 1

 It's impossible for an OS to sit there and guess as to which UI/UX to use. Not to mention, it's inefficient. An OS shouldn't be made to do that.

 

Easily fixed, simply give the user a choice on which UI to use during install or have the OS auto detect if the machine has a touch screen or not.

 

Windows 8 might have actually went somewhere if ms would have just performed this simple task but arrogance got in the way.

Having different OSs too, is inefficient. It drives up support and development costs. 

 

Not necessarily.  You can have the same code base display different things.   So your development team is simply split between a mobile and non-mobile interface.  You can have the same API Calls, you can have the same file structure, and you can have the same base.  How you display that is different.

if (useCase == UC_DESKTOP) {

    //load standard desktop shell

} else if (useCase == UC_TABLET) {

  //load standard tablet/mobile shell

}

As for support.. that's easy.  "Please tell me, do you see a bunch of rectangles, or do you see a little button in the bottom corner?"  If rectangles.. begin mobile support, otherwise desktop support.  You are thinking too complicated, you are not thinking was is actually possible (and being done). 

 

 

And I'm not sure why you would think people would mistake a desktop as a tablet just because of the UI.

 

Didn't say they would.  I was saying that code wise, you can expect components to be present on a desktop vs a tablet.  Nothing to do with the ui outside of which to display.

 

 

There's no rule stating a desktop computer can't run Modern apps on a desktop.

 

Right, so why can you only run "Modern" apps in full screen, not in windowed mode on a desktop...like every other non "Modern" app?  Why do you HAVE to be put into either a full screen, or full screen split app?

 

Trying to differentiate devices isn't going to work, not when A) you're unifying your services, and B) the market is driving digital convergence - and has been for the past ten years. People don't want multiple devices.

Unified services means using the same service across multiple devices, and systems.  That means accessing sky drive, xbox music, etc on whatever device you use.  It means being able to keep documents on all your devices.. it does not mean having all your devices look the exact same.. it means allowing them all to have access to the same things.  Not necessarily presenting them the same.  Right, but the technology isn't there yet.  And trying to force it with software isn't going to change it.  Until a tablet or mobile phone has the power of my desktop computer.. a single device will never replace all my things.  Until I can have dual monitors, with surround sound, and 1gb+ video memory.. and proper desktop.. there will always be a split.

 

And no, "so the only blur.. is between a tablet and a phone" is a fallacy. You have touch enable all in one desktops, you have touch enabled laptops, you have laptops that can separate into tablets, you have desktops that can separate into tablets, and you also have tablets can can transform into workstations. Developing separate OSs for all these devices isn't an option. MSFT did this with Windows 7, and they all failed. You're not going to get a different outcome trying again. They'll fail each time.

 

 

Having certain components does not mean a desktop is not a desktop.  I could have two touch enabled screens on my desktop.. but I would still want to use a standard desktop layout.  I'm sorry but no 8" tablet will ever replace a desktop computer with 22" + screens, TB+ of hdd, 6+gb ram, 1+GB Video cards.  The interface that works well for a desktop may not work well for a tablet or a phone.  However.. the interface for a tablet or phone isn't necessarily (in my opinion isn't) good for a desktop.  Is it useable? yes.. but same could be said in reverse.

Until tablets can support (without special adapters) the power of a desktop, they will never be the same.  There is no blur.. a tablet is a tablet.  Connecting a keyboard to the surface does not make it a laptop computer, it is a tablet with a peripheral. 

Though, I guess talking to you about this would be a lost cause, as you can't seem to see that what microsoft did with windows 8 was not the right thing to do.  

7 did not fundamentally change windows compared to Vista.  The changes amounted to cosmetic ones with features tweaked and visual options altered. 

 

8 has a desktop ui and a metro ui.  I don't get why the desktop ui for 8 is so ignored as if all there is to use is the metro ui.  The metro ui is not what powers the windows 8 desktop.  The windows 8 desktop is windows 7 with tweaks to various features.  The big change is the visual integration of the metro ui.

 

If MS allowed you to disable all features that are part of the metro ui addition such as the start screen and the charms bar, the 8 desktop would be windows 7 with various small improvements.  So MS doesn't even need to go back to anything, just offer the darn option to turn things off.  8.1 added some of the options you guys want.  It allows you to boot straight to the desktop (I use that) and it allows you to disable the hot corner functions while in the desktop.  All MS has to do is pop in a classic start menu and add the option to completely disable the charms bar while in the desktop and your done. 

 

My point is, Windows 9 could be fundamentally no different from 8, but if they make some relatively small changes as I mentioned, suddenly the OS is brand new.  Now the question is, lets say they do that, will you adopt it?  Will others that have voiced their disinterest in anything Metro being on a desktop adopt it?  I don't know honestly.  People say there is this huge groundswell of customers just waiting for say the Start Menu or making Metro optional, that sales will have a huge turn around.  I have a hard time believing that personally.  But maybe if they make these changes, the internet community will get behind Win 9 and create positive buzz. 

 

It's a step forward yes.  But forcing things like project spark to need metro (when it really shouldn't) detracts from the OS.  There is no reason it couldn't have been offered as a standalone install (no need for store and metro).   If windows 9 fixed the issues I have with 8 (metro, and their whole mobile idea) then yes I would likely use it.

It's a step forward yes.  But forcing things like project spark to need metro (when it really shouldn't) detracts from the OS.  There is no reason it couldn't have been offered as a standalone install (no need for store and metro).   If windows 9 fixed the issues I have with 8 (metro, and their whole mobile idea) then yes I would likely use it.

 

 

Project Spark does not need Metro.  Its merely offered in the Win 8 app store.  Your saying its terrible that the app is being offered there and it hurts 8 in the process?  I don't get the issue there.  You would prefer they just offer an installer via say the Microsoft website or Xbox.com?  I mean the app store is basically MS' Steam, it seems appropriate to make their own apps available in it.

 

So as long as Windows 9 got rid of the Metro parts of 8 (including the store apparently), then you would buy into it? 

 

Well that's certainly a possibility.  I think what is more likely to happen is that MS simply allows you to disable the parts you don't want, create a sort of 'classic shell'.  I doubt they will scrap Metro or the store, but maybe they find a way to make those things more palatable to you, especially the store.

I honestly don't think MS will backtrack on this. The Desktop as we know it and [some] love it is changing, and will change. We don't have to like it, and we don't have to accept it. But, we also can't stop it. It's going away. I won't everyone to ask themselves honestly... how long do we see the current desktop UIs persisting? 5 years? 10? 20? 50? When will it be acceptable to attempt to move away from the now 30+ year old paradigm?

 

Metro/Modern may not be ideal for some, but it's a start, a step in a future direction. Whether that future suits personal preference is entirely up to the individual. However, just like the command line still exist, albeit hidden away, we can be certain that grids of icons, taskbars, and resizable windows will be available to those that wish to use them well into the future (albeit hidden away).

Windows 7 is what we want, just like XP is what we want.  But 7 builds on XP and isn't totally new, yes there are changes.. yes it's different but the feel is the same.  8 was a long way away from what most (including I) expect from a desktop os.  So it's not that we aren't satisfied with 7.. we totally are.. but we are disatisfied with windows 8 and it's direction.  We don't want to be stuck with a 13 year old OS that is no longer supported just because MS decided to go mobile on the desktop.

You're right, as I said numerous times, 7 pro is the xp pro on steroids.

 

Windows 8 is for touch screen and tablets, which MS didn't advertise, well I never saw any adverts by them about this.

 

I will probably wait till 10 or even 11.

But forcing things like project spark to need metro (when it really shouldn't) detracts from the OS.  There is no reason it couldn't have been offered as a standalone install (no need for store and metro).

 

 

I forgot another reason its in the app store.  The dev team talked about how one of their goals with the project was to open up access to a game development platform across a variety of devices, even talking about scenarios where you were to say work on your game via your tablet and be able to push those changes in real time to another device, like say the X1 or pc.   So obviously, the game does need to work well with tablets as well as a standard pc. 

 

You can argue that you don't care about using it with a tablet, but that is what the team wants to offer to users, so that's part of the reason its a windows 8 app and not a stand alone desktop program. 

You're right, as I said numerous times, 7 pro is the xp pro on steroids.

 

Windows 8 is for touch screen and tablets, which MS didn't advertise, well I never saw any adverts by them about this.

 

I will probably wait till 10 or even 11.

 

Correction, the metro side of Windows 8 is primarily for touch screens and tablets.

 

The desktop side of Windows 8 is very much for desktop pcs.  Unfortunately, too many people gloss over that fact.

Project Spark does not need Metro.  Its merely offered in the Win 8 app store.  Your saying its terrible that the app is being offered there and it hurts 8 in the process?  I don't get the issue there.  You would prefer they just offer an installer via say the Microsoft website or Xbox.com?  I mean the app store is basically MS' Steam, it seems appropriate to make their own apps available in it.

 

So as long as Windows 9 got rid of the Metro parts of 8 (including the store apparently), then you would buy into it? 

 

Well that's certainly a possibility.  I think what is more likely to happen is that MS simply allows you to disable the parts you don't want, create a sort of 'classic shell'.  I doubt they will scrap Metro or the store, but maybe they find a way to make those things more palatable to you, especially the store.

 

It does indeed need metro.  You cannot run it on the desktop.. trust me.. I tried.  I got into the beta and installed it at work, but it can only be started via the metro screen, and cannot be resized and can only be snapped.  Trust me.. it needs metro.

It's indeed a Metro app, but so what? Is Microsoft just supposed to ignore Metro because you don't want it? What part of Metro is forcing you to not develop games of your own for the desktop?

It does indeed need metro.  You cannot run it on the desktop.. trust me.. I tried.  I got into the beta and installed it at work, but it can only be started via the metro screen, and cannot be resized and can only be snapped.  Trust me.. it needs metro.

As much as I understand your dislike of the Metro interface. You're acting like they've removed everything else from Windows which made it great.

 

They haven't. In fact in Windows 8, as you know, they've made it better.

Will definitely be interesting to see where they go with 9.  I know it's being hopeful, but I really do hope for a Metro/Standard option.  If you pick metro.. you get all metro (akin to RT) if you pick standard, you get a windows 7 style desktop.  Any "metro" apps would run in windows removing the need for things like modern mix.  Full start menu same as 7, so no need for a full screen. 

 

Either way.. im interested to see what direction they go.

 

Why does it have to be either/or? I have no problem with others going all desktop, but why should I be forced to choose Modern or desktop?  I like the flexibility the mix gives.

 

The choice either needs to be 3fold - Modern, desktop or mix.

As much as I understand your dislike of the Metro interface. You're acting like they've removed everything else from Windows which made it great.

 

They haven't. In fact in Windows 8, as you know, they've made it better.

That's your opinion.  Mine is that by removing what they did.. they have made it much worse than it should have been.

Why does it have to be either/or? I have no problem with others going all desktop, but why should I be forced to choose Modern or desktop?  I like the flexibility the mix gives.

 

The choice either needs to be 3fold - Modern, desktop or mix.

Then make it 3 way.. but make it a choice to have.  I want a start MENU, Aero, no full screen unless I set the window properties to full screen, etc.  

That's your opinion.  Mine is that by removing what they did.. they have made it much worse than it should have been.

Well its subjective opinion, but the mass majority will agree that the Task Manager, Explorer and many other smaller changes are very accepted.

 

My other fact still remains, they've not removed anything from Windows which made it great. If you wan't to live on the Desktop, you can. You can use the start screen as a start menu with improved search. I can understand why you'd dislike it, but from that to literally throwing it aside by claiming its not really Windows and they've massacred it. That's something I don't really understand.

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!