The return of the Start menu in future Windows 8.1 update: Thoughts?


Recommended Posts

Good move by Microsoft.

 

If there wasn't enough push back by companies and consumer's, Microsoft won't of reversed it's decision.

Ms listened to feedback, and changed a product based on demand.

They should bring back the Program Manager, since going off comments about Windows 95 at the time, it was superior to the Start Menu in every single way, only "kiddies" and "casuals" used the start menu. "Real professionals" were "more productive" with the Program Manager

 

post-350302-0-65340800-1396555353.png

They should bring back the Program Manager, since going off comments about Windows 95 at the time, it was superior to the Start Menu in every single way, only "kiddies" and "casuals" used the start menu. "Real professionals" were "more productive" with the Program Manager

 

attachicon.gifProgram_Manager.png

 

Works for me. I'd rather have that than the Menu.

 

Not even joking.

You have it already, the desktop.

 

Not quite the same thing, at least for me. What I'd really like is for Program Manager to be the boundary between the two halves of Windows, and have a flat presentation, and provide information in the icons.

 

Oh wait, that's the Start Screen!

 

<Gilda Radner> Nevermind . . . </GR>

Honestly, I'm very confused here... Why is there such a negative reaction to this information? People such as myself have only wanted one thing from MS in regards to Windows 8, choice. Is the Start Screen better? To me, no it isn't, but that doesn't mean MS won't add compelling reasons for me to change my mind in the future. Offering choice, as this change will allow, will enable me to jump over to it at my own leisure. This is rule number 1 of any major change... You do it gradually while empowering the user to buy in.

 

The sheer size of the Windows user base means that there are people who love the Start Screen and those who don't. No one is right or wrong... We all use computers differently...

 

Why are the pro Windows 8 users so hostile to choice?...

 

As power users we should be embracing more options. The more options we have the more flexibility we have to ensure that our computing experience serves our needs well...

  • Like 2

Sweet, lookin forward to it.

The current Start screen is a complete mess and very hard to find my programs, unless pinned to the main screen.

However, I do like some of the live tiles so I put up with it.

So having the excellent Win 7 style start menu, but with live tiles is a bonus.

Honestly, I'm very confused here... Why is there such a negative reaction to this information? People such as myself have only wanted one thing from MS in regards to Windows 8, choice. Is the Start Screen better? To me, no it isn't, but that doesn't mean MS won't add compelling reasons for me to change my mind in the future. Offering choice, as this change will allow, will enable me to jump over to it at my own leisure. This is rule number 1 of any major change... You do it gradually while empowering the user to buy in.

 

The sheer size of the Windows user base means that there are people who love the Start Screen and those who don't. No one is right or wrong... We all use computers differently...

 

Why are the pro Windows 8 users so hostile to choice?...

 

As power users we should be embracing more options. The more options we have the more flexibility we have to ensure that our computing experience serves our needs well...

 

I liked the start screen, but I'm not passing judgment on this new form until after I try it out.

  • Like 1

Its nice to have options but if it was removed cause it wasn't going to work with touch or multi screen situations then I felt removing it was the best choice for further QA testing or for a code rewrite.

 

I totally agree but a lot have the bad habit of not letting go for change

 

I think it was removed because the executives as MS got hoodwinked by Tim Cook at Apple and bought into his notion that we're in a "post PC" era. They literally thought the desktop was dead/dying. Apple has been in a post PC era for a long time, due to failure to capture large market share on the desktop.

 

Microsoft realizes their folly. Sales will most likely go through the roof when it returns.

 

As for it being ancient, the wheel is ancient. And no one has invented a better one yet ... just sayin'. MS invested a lot of money, research, and time developing the Start menu. It, like everything else can be improved. But nothing in the Modern UI does anything better than the Start Menu, it's just different.

Honestly, I'm very confused here... Why is there such a negative reaction to this information? People such as myself have only wanted one thing from MS in regards to Windows 8, choice. Is the Start Screen better? To me, no it isn't, but that doesn't mean MS won't add compelling reasons for me to change my mind in the future. Offering choice, as this change will allow, will enable me to jump over to it at my own leisure. This is rule number 1 of any major change... You do it gradually while empowering the user to buy in.

 

The sheer size of the Windows user base means that there are people who love the Start Screen and those who don't. No one is right or wrong... We all use computers differently...

 

Why are the pro Windows 8 users so hostile to choice?...

 

As power users we should be embracing more options. The more options we have the more flexibility we have to ensure that our computing experience serves our needs well...

 

I think people who chose a side feel an obligation to argue about it when MS backtracks, even if clearly for the better. If the new Start Menu allows app switching from the tiles on it, combined with taskbar pinning of Modern Apps, this will clearly be a superior launcher, task manager. Though I'm quite comfortable with 8.1 now, app switching is something that just does not work efficiently on the desktop with Modern UI IMO.

No thankyou, I treat the startscreen like a fully expanded start menu, and it's a lot quicker that way.

 

The new update with close buttons in metro apps and their integration into the taskbar is quite enough for me.

 

The start menu is a relic of the past.  The start screen is a smart upgrade and the only people that have issue with it are those with low brain functionality.

 

BUT!

 

if this calms down the ignorant whinging, it may be a good thing :)

  • Like 2

I'm hoping there's an option to disable the live tiles on the right-hand side of the new Start Menu, and ideally add back the right-hand side links and menus as seen in Windows Vista and Windows 7. The Win+X menu includes most of them, but it's not a perfect replacement. Live tiles are hampered by being tied to Windows Store apps - if they open up the functionality to desktop programs, they might be more useful.

 

Otherwise, it's a fantastic move - one that I'd feared might not happen.

... a lot have the bad habit of not letting go for change

I thought the great thing about Windows was its customization?  Who cares if I want to use my computer the same way I have for the last 15 years?  That's my choice.  

 

So I don't feel like making a change... that's my choice too.

 

And then there's that old saying of "change for change's sake"

 

What exactly was the purpose of the Start Screen anyway?  How is my life better because of this change?

 

Since Microsoft may be somewhat retreating from that idea in the future... it must not have been that important after all.

 

I don't hate change... I only like it where it is necessary.

I thought the great thing about Windows was its customization?  Who cares if I want to use my computer the same way I have for the last 15 years?  That's my choice.  

 

So I don't feel like making a change... that's my choice too.

 

And then there's that old saying of "change for change's sake"

 

What exactly was the purpose of the Start Screen anyway?  How is my life better because of this change?

 

Since Microsoft may be somewhat retreating from that idea in the future... it must not have been that important after all.

 

I don't hate change... I only like it where it is necessary.

Please - name a NECESSARY change.

 

Every change that has been made in Windows has been fought tooth and nail.

Please - name a NECESSARY change.

 

Every change that has been made in Windows has been fought tooth and nail.

Nobody was asking for the change to Modern or Metro. So that was definitely NOT a necessary change :)

 

If you came from Windows 7 or earlier... ALL of your programs were traditional desktop programs.  And the machine you're using is also a traditional desktop or laptop.  

 

So it's only natural to have a meh attitude (or even hate) Microsoft's new focus on Metro and touch-based apps.

 

In a recent video... Windows VP Joe Belfiore said the following:

 

"Windows 8 was a new design for Windows that was created to enable awesome new touch-based tablets and PCs"

 

And then in the very next sentence he says:

 

"we know that many Windows 8 and 8.1 users are still using mouse and keyboard... or don't have a touchscreen at all"

 

Well... no #### sherlock.  What kind of research did you do?  Didn't you know that there are a billion Windows PCs out in the world that don't have a touchscreen?  So why change the UI at all?

 

At least all your old traditional Windows software will still work.  But you gotta wonder what they were thinking.

 

Judging by the way they are putting back old features... their plan didn't work out too well.

Not quite the same thing, at least for me. What I'd really like is for Program Manager to be the boundary between the two halves of Windows, and have a flat presentation, and provide information in the icons.

 

Oh wait, that's the Start Screen!

 

<Gilda Radner> Nevermind . . . </GR>

I do recall seeing a "modern" Program Manager someone made for XP and later. It's a third-party program, but it worked just like Program/File Manager.

I don't really get the complaint about "leaving the screen I'm working on". How is invoking the menu any less leaving your work? Yes, you can see it, but you can't interact with it without deactivating the menu. Personally, I put more importance on finding stuff faster than on the visual continuity.

 

If you have either the Screen or the Menu up, you're currently focused on that. At that moment you're working on finding the program you want to launch. So why not devote more/all of the screen to that task, so you can get it done faster and get back to what you were going before ( or get started on the new program)?

 

Frankly, to me having most of your screen just showing your desktop or programs in the background is a waste of space. That space could be more effectively used for what you're working on at that moment, which is finding a program.

 

Screen space isn't at a premium like it was in 1995. Why should the program launcher be relegated to a tiny corner any more?

 

Watching youtube and movies for me.

Even if they do bring back the Start menu, I'm sticking with Start8 or similar. The new Start menu looks too fragmented. Then again, I've gotten used to the Start screen (hit Windows key and type).

I do recall seeing a "modern" Program Manager someone made for XP and later. It's a third-party program, but it worked just like Program/File Manager.

 

And can it be set as the boundary between the two halves of Windows, like the Screen currently is?

Nobody was asking for the change to Modern or Metro. So that was definitely NOT a necessary change :)

 

If you came from Windows 7 or earlier... ALL of your programs were traditional desktop programs.  And the machine you're using is also a traditional desktop or laptop.  

 

So it's only natural to have a meh attitude (or even hate) Microsoft's new focus on Metro and touch-based apps.

 

In a recent video... Windows VP Joe Belfiore said the following:

 

"Windows 8 was a new design for Windows that was created to enable awesome new touch-based tablets and PCs"

 

And then in the very next sentence he says:

 

"we know that many Windows 8 and 8.1 users are still using mouse and keyboard... or don't have a touchscreen at all"

 

Well... no #### sherlock.  What kind of research did you do?  Didn't you know that there are a billion Windows PCs out in the world that don't have a touchscreen?  So why change the UI at all?

 

At least all your old traditional Windows software will still work.  But you gotta wonder what they were thinking.

 

Judging by the way they are putting back old features... their plan didn't work out too well.

I don't have a touch-screen, and I have had exactly zero issues with the StartScreen, ever since the Developer Preview.

 

YOU started off with an assumption (the StartScreen and ModernUI are only for tablets and other touch interfaces) , and basically refused to even consider that the StartScreen could do everything the Start menu did - and more besides.

 

Go to pages 30-39 (inclusive) in the Microsoft Beta forum right here on Neowin and read my posts - all of them.

 

While I HAVE used Windows on touch-screen hardware, it has always been someone else's hardware - not mine.  Day in and day out, I have been running Windows 8+ as primary OS on a desktop-formfactor PC, with a traditional (though wireless) keyboard and mouse.  It works because the pointing device in general (and the mouse in particular) is NOT how I primarily interact with the PC; the keyboard is.

 

I was quite skeptical that ModernUI would even WORK for those without touch; however, I adjusted quite well, thank you.  (I've made a point of making that plain as well - and even pointed out why.)

 

I warned the pointing-device-centric that the StartScreen was NOT the Start menu - while there ARE similarities, it does have some differences.  However, those of you that are so pointing-device-centric howled and screamed - the gravy train of kissing up that stretched back to Windows 95 was being derailed!

 

That is why I regard the return of the Start menu as nothing more - or less - than kissing back up to the pointing-device-centric.

You must do what you have to in order to sell a product.

 

I think this compromise of classic start menu and modern metro will help sales. Which is what is ultimately important.

 

Windows for free on 9 inch and under screens I expect to be huge.

Nobody was asking for the change to Modern or Metro. So that was definitely NOT a necessary change :)

 

If you came from Windows 7 or earlier... ALL of your programs were traditional desktop programs.  And the machine you're using is also a traditional desktop or laptop.  

 

So it's only natural to have a meh attitude (or even hate) Microsoft's new focus on Metro and touch-based apps.

 

In a recent video... Windows VP Joe Belfiore said the following:

 

"Windows 8 was a new design for Windows that was created to enable awesome new touch-based tablets and PCs"

 

And then in the very next sentence he says:

 

"we know that many Windows 8 and 8.1 users are still using mouse and keyboard... or don't have a touchscreen at all"

 

Well... no #### sherlock.  What kind of research did you do?  Didn't you know that there are a billion Windows PCs out in the world that don't have a touchscreen?  So why change the UI at all?

 

At least all your old traditional Windows software will still work.  But you gotta wonder what they were thinking.

 

Judging by the way they are putting back old features... their plan didn't work out too well.

Horsepuckey.

 

I go back pre-Windows, if not pre-Microsoft - to IBM big iron (mainframes in particular).

 

The issue with the Start menu is pointing devices in general - if not mice in particular.

In no less than "Introducing Windows 95" (Microsoft Press), the reason for the reset of the desktop (from Windows 3.x) and the Start menu is explained with quite a bit of candor; the Start menu (unlike Program Manager) is a pointing-device-driven interface - nothing shows until you click on either a label or icon.  (If you look at Windows 95 installed with the defaults, you'll notice an empty desktop - not even wallpapered.  It's waiting to be dressed up by the user.)

However, if you aren't pointing-device-centric (and a LOT of Windows users weren't, even then), you basically got thrown under the bus - and you'd be stuck under that bus until Windows 8's Developer Preview began leaking.

Windows 8 got those of us that weren't pointing-device-centric out from under the bus because the Start menu was gone.

Yes; touch-screen users did benefit - I've never said otherwise.  However, keyboard-centered users benefit even more than touch-centered users because - unlike touch-centered users - we didn't require any new hardware at all.  (In other words, so much for you assumption - and that is exactly what it is - that all traditional hardware users running Windows are pointing-device-centered.  A lot are - it may even be a majority; however, it certainly is far from all.

 

Assumptions are the mother of all muckups - and that cuts multiple ways.

Horsepuckey.

 

I go back pre-Windows, if not pre-Microsoft - to IBM big iron (mainframes in particular).

 

The issue with the Start menu is pointing devices in general - if not mice in particular.

In no less than "Introducing Windows 95" (Microsoft Press), the reason for the reset of the desktop (from Windows 3.x) and the Start menu is explained with quite a bit of candor; the Start menu (unlike Program Manager) is a pointing-device-driven interface - nothing shows until you click on either a label or icon.  (If you look at Windows 95 installed with the defaults, you'll notice an empty desktop - not even wallpapered.  It's waiting to be dressed up by the user.)

However, if you aren't pointing-device-centric (and a LOT of Windows users weren't, even then), you basically got thrown under the bus - and you'd be stuck under that bus until Windows 8's Developer Preview began leaking.

Windows 8 got those of us that weren't pointing-device-centric out from under the bus because the Start menu was gone.

Yes; touch-screen users did benefit - I've never said otherwise.  However, keyboard-centered users benefit even more than touch-centered users because - unlike touch-centered users - we didn't require any new hardware at all.  (In other words, so much for you assumption - and that is exactly what it is - that all traditional hardware users running Windows are pointing-device-centered.  A lot are - it may even be a majority; however, it certainly is far from all.

 

Assumptions are the mother of all muckups - and that cuts multiple ways.

I guess I don't understand the point of the ModernUI.

 

Are developers supposed to create Modern versions of their programs?

 

Apparently that's not happening yet (if at all) and people are still using their old programs (from the desktop)

 

And they still want to interact with their old programs the way they've done for years (on the desktop with a familiar Start Menu)

 

That's why I was saying people didn't ask for this change.

 

I'm still on Windows 7... so all my programs are traditional desktop programs.  

 

I never said "boy I wish there was a new way to interact with my computer. Even if I still use a keyboard and mouse... I wish everything looked and worked differently."

 

I don't think anyone said that. That's why it was such a shock when it happened.

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!