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


Recommended Posts

As long as the full-screen Metro interface still applies on tablet then I'm happy with this. I liked the metro interface but with the ability to window apps and include them more into the desktop environment is something I'm not going to turn my nose upon. Just MS, please update those f*****g icons.

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.

 

I'd been wanting a new way to interact with my computer since 1995. I'd always hated the Menu. The best element for me of 8 is not the improved touchscreen support, not the new added program style, it's the lack of Start Menu.

 

So yeah, some people had been wanting things to look and work differently, and were frustrated when every version of Windows was just the same regurgitated design with a fresh coat of paint.

 

The option of a Start Menu is nice for those that wanted it, but for those of us that loathe it, it had better remain an option.

 

I'm going to hold off on updating U1 until I find out if all the "enhancements" can be disabled. I don't want to have to use a Menu again, and I don't want Modern turned into just another variation of the desktop. Let it be its own animal, rather than a desktop clone.

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.

Why can't developers create ModernUI versions of their programs?  If they can create versions of their software for Android and iOS, why NOT ModernUI?  Amazon created a ModernUI version of the Kindle reader application; I faulted it because it is feature-incomplete compared to the versions for other OSes - not because there isn't one.

 

I came to Windows 8 FROM Windows 7; the only desktop programs I didn't bring with me were those mooted by features now in the OS proper.  Every other application and game made the trip, and works as well as, if not better than, in Windows 7.

 

Therein lies the difference - pointing-device-centric users were the ones in favor.  Suddenly, with Windows 8, they weren't.  The pointing-device is not the primary means of interaction with Windows 8 - it has equal favor with both touch AND keyboard.

 

Keyboard-centric users migrated with little or no issues whatever - it's the pointing-device-centric users that are screaming.  I specifically said that they WOULD be screaming, too - however, I had no idea how loud the screams would get.

Not necessary for me as I'm used to Modern apps and the Start Screen. But I know a few areas where they are superfluous or cumbersome, so I like that the option will be available (which it should have been from the get go as it was too big a change for some).

What I'm happy about is the native windowed ModernUI app support, that's just great!

What I am waiting to see is if Microsoft can truly blend the modern experience and traditional experience in a seemless way. Similar to how Apple does launchpad, mission control and spaces. They are getting close, to that though

What I am waiting to see is if Microsoft can truly blend the modern experience and traditional experience in a seemless way. Similar to how Apple does launchpad, mission control and spaces. They are getting close, to that though

Not really - they refused to take the next logical step with any of them (at least on portable hardware, such as the MacBook Air/Pro) - why no touch-screen MacBooks, let alone iMacs?

 

Any of it - in fact, all of it - can only gain usability merely by adding touch-screen hardware (as an option, not necessarily a requirement); however, Apple has refused to budge - why?

 

In that respect, Microsoft's hardware partners - especially in terms of WINDOWS hardware partners - are far ahead of Apple (matching the hardware to the OS capabilities).

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.

Michael - the point I am trying to make is that ALL change there HAS been as far as Windows goes - going all the way back to Windows 95 itself - has been fought against.  If the change-hostile in Windows had their way, we would be celebrating the third decade of Program Manager.  All too many Windows users are HAPPY with "meh" - while a lot of the remainder feel basically helpless, if not powerless.

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

I remember using it on Win7, so I dunno if it's been updated for Win8. Hell, I don't even remember the name of the program or where I found it...

 

Google of course isn't turning up anything useful... Although you can use the original PROGMAN.EXE files on Win7. And most likely 8.

I remember using it on Win7, so I dunno if it's been updated for Win8. Hell, I don't even remember the name of the program or where I found it...

 

Google of course isn't turning up anything useful... Although you can use the original PROGMAN.EXE files on Win7. And most likely 8.

 

The point I was trying to make, is that Program Manager, as it was in 3.x, isn't well-suited for 8.x. It's desktop only, and Windows isn't purely desktop UI anymore. I use some Modern apps, and don't want to have to drop into the desktop just to launch a program. The Screen, OTOH, I see as the boundary between the two designs, since you can easily launch either desktop or Modern programs from it.

 

Nonetheless, if we have to have a purely desktop-oriented launcher, I'd rather have Progman than the textmaze

Michael - the point I am trying to make is that ALL change there HAS been as far as Windows goes - going all the way back to Windows 95 itself - has been fought against.  If the change-hostile in Windows had their way, we would be celebrating the third decade of Program Manager.  All too many Windows users are HAPPY with "meh" - while a lot of the remainder feel basically helpless, if not powerless.

Yeah... I know all changes are fought against and hated.  It just seems like Windows 8 was more hated than all the rest.

 

Do you think people will come to accept the Windows 8 style eventually?  If so... then Microsoft should have ignored their dissenters and stayed the course.  But they're not.

 

Microsoft had this grand vision and new interface for Windows 8... but now they are returning features to please people who are happy with the "old" style.

 

That's why I was wondering why they made such huge changes at all... if they end up having to reverse them. This obviously didn't go as planned.  

 

Windows 8 came with no "boot to desktop" functionality.  Then Windows 8.1 brought it back.  Surprise... people have a lot of desktop software that they just want to get to with minimal fuss.

 

Then people still were missing other things... and Update 1 fixed some of those problems.

 

Now... the rumor is that something resembling the traditional Start Menu will be coming back as well.

 

So again... why did Microsoft make all these big changes... if they're gonna have to put it back the way it used to be?

 

Microsoft has a tough job.  They want to innovate and prepare for exciting new computing paradigms in the future.  I get that.

 

But... they've also got a billion existing users that they have to keep happy as well.

 

You're right... people hated Windows 95 and they wanted their old Windows 3.1 back.  Microsoft didn't give them that though.

 

Now look at all the things Microsoft is putting back into Windows 8 and other fixes... is this an admission that Microsoft screwed up?

Yeah... I know all changes are fought against and hated.  It just seems like Windows 8 was more hated than all the rest.

 

Search in the Start menu, the search indexer, and UAC were absolutely hated when first introduced in Vista.

Horsepuckey.

 

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

 

horsepuckey yourself

 

the start menu and mouse/keyboard are the ideal way to drive a computer that is actually used to do productive work.

 

Anyone who thinks the metro interface is good, obviously does nothing more than browse information and consume media (and use it like a toy, which is basically what metro is).

There is no way it can be used in a productive way for business purposes or by (power) users who need to get things done.

Michael - the point I am trying to make is that ALL change there HAS been as far as Windows goes - going all the way back to Windows 95 itself - has been fought against.

 

Rubbish, change has only been fought when its a backwards step, and Microsoft has done it twice now, because they didn't listen to their customers.

 

Vista was a massive fail, as was Windows 8.

 

The sooner they completely dump metro, and bring out Windows 9 with full desktop/mouse/keyboard support, as it is in Windows 7, the sooner I'll be buying my next version of Windows.

No way I'm wasting any money on Windows 8.

 UAC were absolutely hated when first introduced

 

And still is today, despite it being pretty much neutered, due to Microsoft not listening to its customers, and making windows harder to use.

At least there was always the option to totally disable it, which is what I've done in every version of windows since it was released.

Vista was a massive fail, as was Windows 8.

 

The sooner they completely dump metro, and bring out Windows 9 with full desktop/mouse/keyboard support, as it is in Windows 7 . . .

Slightly off-topic, but how can you bash Windows Vista in one paragraph and praise Windows 7 in the next? Windows Vista introduced most of the features that Windows users are currently clamoring for (such as Windows Aero, Windows 7-style Start menu, etc.) Doesn't Vista also offer full support for the desktop paradigm, mouse, and keyboard?

 

And still is today, despite it being pretty much neutered, due to Microsoft not listening to its customers, and making windows harder to use.

At least there was always the option to totally disable it, which is what I've done in every version of windows since it was released.

Edit: Microsoft didn't listen to customers when modifying UAC in Windows 7 . . .? I thought the consensus at the time was that the feature was too annoying or intrusive?

horsepuckey yourself

 

the start menu and mouse/keyboard are the ideal way to drive a computer that is actually used to do productive work.

 

Anyone who thinks the metro interface is good, obviously does nothing more than browse information and consume media (and use it like a toy, which is basically what metro is).

There is no way it can be used in a productive way for business purposes or by (power) users who need to get things done.

 

These exact same arguments were made AGAINST the start menu when it was introduced in 1995, by people who swore by the Windows 3.1 Program Manager, calling anyone who liked the Start Menu "kiddies" etc, and saying "professionals" were "more productive" with the program manager.

 

Plenty of people are able to get work done using the Start Screen, saying otherwise is nonsense, It's just a program launcher. Me launching Office from the Start Screen or the Start Menu doesn't make a lick of difference. 

 

Every feature will be complained about by a certain group of people, and the ones who complain about it are always more vocal than the ones who dont mind it. 

  • Like 2

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.

Nobody asked for the Ribbon, either. So what? Nobody has asked for any change, but we still get it regardless.

Now look at all the things Microsoft is putting back into Windows 8 and other fixes... is this an admission that Microsoft screwed up?

hundreds of millions of modern apps are being downloaded in an app store that's one and a half years young. adding features and options to aid in the transition is not screwing up.

What's wrong with searching? It's not like you have to sit there and type the EXACT application executable name anymore. Type in a few characters, click the icon that appears, and be on your way.

The Search function would be more useful if it had better autocorrect/suggest functionality. 

 

I don't have this problem but I've seen people type the names of programs (and files, etc) wrong, and it the search function is not particularly intelligent - the correct program/file might not show up at all, instead all you get are the internet search results which are not particularly helpful...

Nobody asked for the Ribbon, either. So what? Nobody has asked for any change, but we still get it regardless.

That's a good point.  Microsoft knew the ribbon would be better than digging around through sub-menus. And they've kept the Ribbon... despite the hate.

 

I'm guessing they also thought the Start Screen would be better than digging through the old Start Menu.  They even got rid of the start button just so you'd forget about it.

 

But here we are... first the return of a button... and now rumors of a start menu.

 

People didn't ask for the change... but it doesn't matter because many of these changes are being reversed.

These exact same arguments were made AGAINST the start menu when it was introduced in 1995, by people who swore by the Windows 3.1 Program Manager, calling anyone who liked the Start Menu "kiddies" etc, and saying "professionals" were "more productive" with the program manager.

 

Plenty of people are able to get work done using the Start Screen, saying otherwise is nonsense, It's just a program launcher. Me launching Office from the Start Screen or the Start Menu doesn't make a lick of difference. 

 

Every feature will be complained about by a certain group of people, and the ones who complain about it are always more vocal than the ones who dont mind it. 

Take it one step farther... Back when Windows was first released, "GUIs are for kids. Real men don't use mice."

 

And I'm sure when computers were first being invented, purists were talking about how much more productive they would be on typewriters.

 

All these arguments are nothing new. And I find that I am just as productive on Win8 as I have been on any previous version of Windows. And I do "real things" like research papers, Illustrator usage, etc.

adding features and options to aid in the transition is not screwing up.

They're adding some features and options that they took away in the first place.

 

That tells me that Microsoft didn't do enough research on how people actually use their computers.

 

I'm sure there were many meetings like this in Redmond:  "Let's take this feature away... nobody will miss it..."

 

oops... 

 

If you have something in one version of Windows... and then you take it way for the next version of Windows... then you put it back in the following version of Windows.... isn't that considered screwing up?  :)

 

Maybe "screwing up" is too harsh of a term... but you get the idea.

Take it one step farther... Back when Windows was first released, "GUIs are for kids. Real men don't use mice."

 

And I'm sure when computers were first being invented, purists were talking about how much more productive they would be on typewriters.

 

All these arguments are nothing new. And I find that I am just as productive on Win8 as I have been on any previous version of Windows. And I do "real things" like research papers, Illustrator usage, etc.

 

Im hoping this new Start menu lets me choose how wide it is, one thing that bothered me about the old Start menu was you could only make it taller, couldn't take advantage of my horizontal screen real estate, the thing people have most of.

Good...hopefully it comes with a "legacy" option.  I absolutely hate Metro and the start screen.  One other option I would like to see added is the ability to see text clearly on dark themes.  One of my other major gripes.

 

 

post-21852-0-86533000-1396659303.jpg

Im hoping this new Start menu lets me choose how wide it is, one thing that bothered me about the old Start menu was you could only make it taller, couldn't take advantage of my horizontal screen real estate, the thing people have most of.

This. The old Windows XP era Start Menu wasn't scalable at all. It was never updated to take advantage of bigger monitors and resolutions. Just one of the many issues with it.

Good...hopefully it comes with a "legacy" option.  I absolutely hate Metro and the start screen.  One other option I would like to see added is the ability to see text clearly on dark themes.  One of my other major gripes.

Yes, this is very annoying for me. This wasn't an issue on Vista/7, no idea why the text won't just automatically go white if you have black window chrome. It's a shame, too... I *want* to use black window chrome, but I can't, for this very reason.

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!