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


Recommended Posts

I don't get what you mean with your middle click.

 

If I use the middle click the wheel goes to frictionless scroll vs. "precise" click-to-click scroll which I prefer.  It is a hardware feature.

 

Anyway, I still prefer not to pin programs except on the HTPC where its sole purpose is to run XBMC and occasionally browse the net or rip dvd/blu rays.

post-21852-0-76894000-1397398138.jpg

That is great.  Keep with the Metro / typing to launch applications.  Not sure why you and Dot Matrix have a hard time understanding and are trying to convince others that Metro is so much better and that WE should use it.  No thank you, I'd much rather have the Start Menu / QuickLaunch bar to run programs instead of being thrown into a full screen program launcher.  

 

Also, the argument that the Start Menu is legacy and has passed its usefulness is such hogwash...it is JUST a program launcher...that is it and that is all it should be.  Did I mention I love the QuickLaunch bar?  Even after almost 15 years it beats the Start Menu and Start Screen at launching programs.  I don't like pinning because it takes either holding the shift button or right clicking to run multiple instances.

 

Below is my simple Windows 7 method of launching programs.  Desktop has two icons, Computer and Recycle Bin.  Simplistic and it works for me.

 

I'm not saying that you have to use the Screen, only that I prefer it.

 

And typing is my preferred launching method in Windows 7. It let me not have to deal with the menu at all, apart from the search box. It was easier to use search than to deal with the multilayer menus.

 

For 8 I use the tiles first, search only for things I don't have pinned to Start.

 

And full-screen vs. compact is definitely a matter of preference. When I bring up Start, I'm looking to launch a program. I'd rather have more of my brand-new 24 inch monitor utilized for that so I can find what I want and get back to work sooner. IMO there's no need these days to cram the program presentation into a little corner. That's one of the reasons I prefer the Screen to the menu - better use of the available resources.

 

I find Quicklaunch useful as well, but I keep it down to just a few programs.

This, x1000000000000000000000000000000000

It may just be a launcher, but it's a horribly designed launcher. The biggest issue with it (and the desktop in general), is that it just doesn't scale well at all. It's incredibly hard to see those icons, and the user is dependent on reading line after line in order to locate the folder they need, thanks to the vanilla folders all having the same icon. Taskbar pinning is great, but it's no savior either, as I find myself easily able to mis-click on those icons, wasting time as I now have to wait for the application to launch before closing it. The same applies for the quicklaunch bar. I'm personally glad that was removed from Windows 7. It was great to pin "show desktop" there, and that was about it.

FYI, You can open new instances of applications by simply clicking the middle mouse wheel.

 

You may think it is...but I think it is more practical than having a full screen program launcher.  The design of it is simplistic and does exactly what it needs to do.  I, however, do not suffer from any of those issues you are describing though either...I do not have issues identifying icons, rarely open the wrong program or have issues going through various folders.  But I also keep my computer(s) fairly neat and organized.  I do not need or want a program launcher which takes up the entire screen.  It is about choice and preference and for me that means the start menu and nothing metro.  Regarding QuickLaunch bar, luckily it wasn't really removed and it still is one of the quickest methods of not just launching one program but also multiple instances of the same program.

 

 

I'm not saying that you have to use the Screen, only that I prefer it.

 

And typing is my preferred launching method in Windows 7. It let me not have to deal with the menu at all, apart from the search box. It was easier to use search than to deal with the multilayer menus.

 

For 8 I use the tiles first, search only for things I don't have pinned to Start.

 

And full-screen vs. compact is definitely a matter of preference. When I bring up Start, I'm looking to launch a program. I'd rather have more of my brand-new 24 inch monitor utilized for that so I can find what I want and get back to work sooner. IMO there's no need these days to cram the program presentation into a little corner. That's one of the reasons I prefer the Screen to the menu - better use of the available resources.

 

I find Quicklaunch useful as well, but I keep it down to just a few programs.

 

 

Well, pretty much you have to use the screen with how Windows 8 shipped (natively...w/o 3rd party applications).  That was the biggest blunders Microsoft has made (probably) since the launch of Windows ME.  I am not arguing the point of preferences...I honestly do not care which method that you, Dot Matrix or anyone else uses.  I do not care that you and others think Metro is great and that live tiles are useful...I, however, do not care for either.  My beef is that while you have your preference as an option my preferred option/preference does not exist natively.  Hopefully, with this future update, you can have your preferred method but I and others can also have ours (natively).  We can then live in harmony...you using Metro and I'll be using the start menu.  

 

That is the way it should have been from the very beginning.

Well, pretty much you have to use the screen with how Windows 8 shipped (natively...w/o 3rd party applications).  That was the biggest blunders Microsoft has made (probably) since the launch of Windows ME.  I am not arguing the point of preferences...I honestly do not care which method that you, Dot Matrix or anyone else uses.  I do not care that you and others think Metro is great and that live tiles are useful...I, however, do not care for either.  My beef is that while you have your preference as an option my preferred option/preference does not exist natively.  Hopefully, with this future update, you can have your preferred method but I and others can also have ours (natively).  We can then live in harmony...you using Metro and I'll be using the start menu.  

 

That is the way it should have been from the very beginning.

 

Similarly, my beef with XP, Vista and 7 was the lack of native options apart from the Start Menu. And to a lesser extent, 9x as well - Progman was present, but well hidden. People like to act as if everyone was perfectly happy with the state of affairs prior to the release of 8, so MS shouldn't have changed things. That wasn't the case. I like the range of program support Windows has, so that meant I had to live with the Menu/desktop combo. I never liked the Menu. While 3rd party options existed, I never found one stable and efficient enough to be an adequate replacement.

 

So I can sympathize - where you are now is my position from 1995 - 2012. The situation hasn't changed - MS is (currently) providing one interface and you can use it or go third party. That's how it's always been as far back as Windows 3.x. I used Norton Desktop, a third party shell with 3.x. If it had been compatible with 95, I would have kept using it.

 

The only change is that for once, I actually like what they're providing out of the box so I don't have to look at third party shells. And you're on the other side, where I used to be. The high-profile option of an older interface is actually completely unprecedented.

don't see why there so much hate for the start menu, it's been a useful and one of the best ideas microsoft had for windows imo.

 

I will welcome it's return, then i can stop using quick launch as a menu..

  • Like 3

don't see why there so much hate for the start menu, it's been a useful and one of the best ideas microsoft had for windows imo.

 

I will welcome it's return, then i can stop using quick launch as a menu..

 

Because it's old and needs to be updated at least?  Look at other UIs, like the Linux ones out there.  Ubuntu, Mint etc, they don't use the same old Windows 7 style menu, though KDE might still but I haven't been keeping up with that since 4.0.    I messed around with Mint 16 a few days ago and it's menu is a interesting mix, there's no folders where apps dump things, there's preset categories on one side and then a app list on the other.    Everyone is moving away from the old style menus on to something else, no reason Windows should stick back. 

I am only replying to the OP because this is my opinion.  The old fashioned Start Menu with restart options and simple customisation beats anything Ive seen in 8 so far.  I purchased 4 licenses for 8 for my family and nobody is using them!   People at work say  8 is a pain and that its opening things in windows they don't want or can't control.  I know that we can re-assign opening options to the desktop but casual users don't and from Ive seen and heard, casual users  are frustrated and hating the experience compared to their old working environment.  Getting the start menu back is a huge step backward but its needed because MS don't seem to be able to come up with anything to beat it - Im just sorry that MS had to realise that because it feels like all these highly paid people have no idea what their customers want.  If there was an viable alternative to Windows then i would be gone, until that time we are left just paying incompetent people because we have to.

don't see why there so much hate for the start menu, it's been a useful and one of the best ideas microsoft had for windows imo.

 

I will welcome it's return, then i can stop using quick launch as a menu..

It's outdated. We currently live in an app-centric world, and many modern operating systems are being designed around this. Take a look at Mac OSX, iOS, Android, etc. Currently, the Start Menu hides things away from the user. You have to dig, dig, and dig some more to locate what you're looking for (If you're for whatever reason against using Search, which, c'mon, there's no reason not to use it). People don't want to do that (which is why you always see them clutter their desktops with junk). It's also limited in capacity. You can only pin so many apps to it, before you reach your limit (depending on the size of your screen).

 

These are just a few of the issues Microsoft is facing that I can think of off the top of my head. Like I said, these times are changing, and this is nothing more than Microsoft adapting to new market trends. You can't blame them for doing that, as the changes to Windows are needed if it is to remain relevant.

If it were a case of simply clicking an item, that would be one thing, but the menu required drilling down to find anything not in the most frequently used or pinned programs. I hate having to dig through multiple submenus. It's easier and faster to type. I like the screen because it eliminates the drilldown - it really is "just click it".

The nested-submenu problem predates the Start menu - in fact, it goes back to Program Manager and File Manager (in short, back to Windows 3.x/NT3.x) and is actually a legacy of the submenu structure commonplace to all non-mainframe OSes.  Yes - I said *all*; look at the BSDs and UNIX, and you will see the SAME trunk/branch/twig/leaf file-system structure that DOS was much sporked for.  There has been exactly zero change in the filesystem structure realistically since before the birth of the GUI - as much as a truly object-oriented filesystem has been talked about - going back before the original Microsoft/IBM Operating System/2 project, in fact - where have filesystems in general not gone, in fact?  And would anyone care to guess WHY they haven't gone there?

 

When it comes to how things work, the reality is, like ice cream - the overwhelming majority STILL prefer "vanilla".

The nested-submenu problem predates the Start menu - in fact, it goes back to Program Manager and File Manager (in short, back to Windows 3.x/NT3.x) and is actually a legacy of the submenu structure commonplace to all non-mainframe OSes.  Yes - I said *all*; look at the BSDs and UNIX, and you will see the SAME trunk/branch/twig/leaf file-system structure that DOS was much sporked for.  There has been exactly zero change in the filesystem structure realistically since before the birth of the GUI - as much as a truly object-oriented filesystem has been talked about - going back before the original Microsoft/IBM Operating System/2 project, in fact - where have filesystems in general not gone, in fact?  And would anyone care to guess WHY they haven't gone there?

 

When it comes to how things work, the reality is, like ice cream - the overwhelming majority STILL prefer "vanilla".

 

The branching tree structure makes sense. You can always go to the root and find your way around easily from a command line or gui. But besides the fact that it makes sense, there are some technical reasons it hasn't change aren't there? Systems running Windows can't just "change" without the OS/Registry changing.

It's outdated. We currently live in an app-centric world, and many modern operating systems are being designed around this. Take a look at Mac OSX, iOS, Android, etc. Currently, the Start Menu hides things away from the user. You have to dig, dig, and dig some more to locate what you're looking for (If you're for whatever reason against using Search, which, c'mon, there's no reason not to use it). People don't want to do that (which is why you always see them clutter their desktops with junk). It's also limited in capacity. You can only pin so many apps to it, before you reach your limit (depending on the size of your screen).

 

These are just a few of the issues Microsoft is facing that I can think of off the top of my head. Like I said, these times are changing, and this is nothing more than Microsoft adapting to new market trends. You can't blame them for doing that, as the changes to Windows are needed if it is to remain relevant.

 

Um what?  Apps are just applications.  Yes I would rather have the OS built around Flappy Bird instead of actual productive programs like 3DS Max.

 

Again with this start menu hiding things?  It is called being organized.  You do not have to dig, and dig, and dig, and dig.  If you are looking for Microsoft Office, you do not look in the Autodesk or Adobe folder.....

Um what?  Apps are just applications.  Yes I would rather have the OS built around Flappy Bird instead of actual productive programs like 3DS Max.

 

Again with this start menu hiding things?  It is called being organized.  You do not have to dig, and dig, and dig, and dig.  If you are looking for Microsoft Office, you do not look in the Autodesk or Adobe folder.....

 

No, but you have to look for the Microsoft Office folder, which if you have a lot of programs installed, can get lost in the shuffle. The menu had very poor organization tools, while with the Screen you just drag and drop programs into groups and then name the groups. And there's no digging into folders.

 

But it's good that the menu is coming back as an option, rather than MS catering to just one style of organization. Flexibility is a good thing.

 

Hopefully Microsoft won't repeat their mistake with Update 1, assume that everyone wants the menu back, and make it difficult to disable it on traditional machines. You know, what they did with Boot to/Return to desktop?

Um what? Apps are just applications. Yes I would rather have the OS built around Flappy Bird instead of actual productive programs like 3DS Max.

Again with this start menu hiding things? It is called being organized. You do not have to dig, and dig, and dig, and dig. If you are looking for Microsoft Office, you do not look in the Autodesk or Adobe folder.....

Yes, you do have to dig. At least that's what the people here claim because they install "hundreds" of applications they can never remember the name for.

Unless they're all lying about that?

The branching tree structure makes sense. You can always go to the root and find your way around easily from a command line or gui. But besides the fact that it makes sense, there are some technical reasons it hasn't change aren't there? Systems running Windows can't just "change" without the OS/Registry changing.

MorganX - as I just pointed out, it predates Windows, and even exists in operating systems that aren't Windows (or predate Windows), such as DOS and UNIX - neither of which HAS a registry.

An object-oriented filesystem has been taked - and talked, and talked about - yet it always comes down to nothing.

As much as we *claim* to hate the old structure, the chances of our moving away from it - in or out of Windows - are basically none because such a fundamental change horks in way too many ricebowls.

No, but you have to look for the Microsoft Office folder, which if you have a lot of programs installed, can get lost in the shuffle. The menu had very poor organization tools, while with the Screen you just drag and drop programs into groups and then name the groups. And there's no digging into folders.

 

But it's good that the menu is coming back as an option, rather than MS catering to just one style of organization. Flexibility is a good thing.

 

Hopefully Microsoft won't repeat their mistake with Update 1, assume that everyone wants the menu back, and make it difficult to disable it on traditional machines. You know, what they did with Boot to/Return to desktop?

 

 

But with the Windows vista / 7  start menu it would bring up a small box in the bottom left where you could search for it. Now the same thing happens except it takes up the entire screen.

But with the Windows vista / 7  start menu it would bring up a small box in the bottom left where you could search for it. Now the same thing happens except it takes up the entire screen.

 

I don't have a problem with full-screen. It goes away as soon as I make my selection.

 

I do have a problem with having all my stuff crammed into a tiny corner. Especially since I have a cute but stubborn cat who loves to curl up in front of my screen. The search box, if I can see it at all, is a little . . . fuzzy.

That is great.  Keep with the Metro / typing to launch applications.  Not sure why you and Dot Matrix have a hard time understanding and are trying to convince others that Metro is so much better and that WE should use it.  No thank you, I'd much rather have the Start Menu / QuickLaunch bar to run programs instead of being thrown into a full screen program launcher.  

 

Also, the argument that the Start Menu is legacy and has passed its usefulness is such hogwash...it is JUST a program launcher...that is it and that is all it should be.  Did I mention I love the QuickLaunch bar?  Even after almost 15 years it beats the Start Menu and Start Screen at launching programs.  I don't like pinning because it takes either holding the shift button or right clicking to run multiple instances.

 

Below is my simple Windows 7 method of launching programs.  Desktop has two icons, Computer and Recycle Bin.  Simplistic and it works for me.

 

post-21852-0-10537200-1397394552.jpg

Same for me.  The Start Menu is where I put icons for my frequently used programs.  I use it like a simple program launcher.  I made that choice.

 

You're exactly right... Windows has always been about customizing the experience for ME. I don't want someone else telling me how I should use my computer.

 

I never understood why the Start Screen was supposed to be so much better.

 

DJcav.png

  • Like 1

Same for me.  The Start Menu is where I put icons for my frequently used programs.  I use it like a simple program launcher.  I made that choice.

 

You're exactly right... Windows has always been about customizing the experience for ME. I don't want someone else telling me how I should use my computer.

 

I never understood why the Start Screen was supposed to be so much better.

 

DJcav.png

So, you're comparing the Start Menu to a pre-beta version of the Start Screen?

I don't have a problem with full-screen. It goes away as soon as I make my selection.

 

I do have a problem with having all my stuff crammed into a tiny corner. Especially since I have a cute but stubborn cat who loves to curl up in front of my screen. The search box, if I can see it at all, is a little . . . fuzzy.

It is strange... I'm trying Windows 8 out again and I'm still not sure how the Start Screen is better for a person who "searches" for their applications. It literally only allocates as much width as you had on the Start Menu to the searches while dedicating 90% of your screen to something you aren't interested in seeing (tiles or all apps list).

 

I still use Win+R for most of my programs, but it was annoying to see when I tried to understand the "just use search" mindset. If I had to rely on search to launch apps I would use Win+S. At least it keeps you out of the Start Screen...

So, you're comparing the Start Menu to a pre-beta version of the Start Screen?

Not exactly.

 

One is a thin strip that appears on top of the desktop I'm already working on.

 

The other takes over the entire screen... separating me from the desktop I was working on.

 

Look Dot... I know you love the Start Screen.  

 

I don't.  

 

Let me.

  • Like 2

It is strange... I'm trying Windows 8 out again and I'm still not sure how the Start Screen is better for a person who "searches" for their applications. It literally only allocates as much width as you had on the Start Menu to the searches while dedicating 90% of your screen to something you aren't interested in seeing (tiles or all apps list).

 

I still use Win+R for most of my programs, but it was annoying to see when I tried to understand the "just use search" mindset. If I had to rely on search to launch apps I would use Win+S. At least it keeps you out of the Start Screen...

It's not any better for searching: it's the same old same old which is why I find that I generally don't really care if I have the start screen or start menu. The effective pluses for the start screen are live tiles and a bigger pen board. Other parts like the application-menu are worse to use than the original hierarchical menu system found in the start menu. So it has those trade-offs, that's my assessment anyway.

I personally like the start screen as is, works fine on my Desktop with Keyboard and Mouse, adapted to it in the first week of using Windows 8.0 in October 2013, Updated to Update 1, and still enjoy Start screen, running several apps both Desktop and start screen without any issues, snapping Apps to the screen as needed, closing them when done, while keeping eye on Desktop application

 

Overall works perfectly for my needs

So, you're comparing the Start Menu to a pre-beta version of the Start Screen?

 

I'm going to take 2 responses out your book.

 

First one : ok?

Second one:  and?

 

What does it matter if it's pre-beta or not the start screen is still just a full screen with a bunch of rectangles and squares.

It is strange... I'm trying Windows 8 out again and I'm still not sure how the Start Screen is better for a person who "searches" for their applications. It literally only allocates as much width as you had on the Start Menu to the searches while dedicating 90% of your screen to something you aren't interested in seeing (tiles or all apps list).

 

I still use Win+R for most of my programs, but it was annoying to see when I tried to understand the "just use search" mindset. If I had to rely on search to launch apps I would use Win+S. At least it keeps you out of the Start Screen...

 

It's not. As someone who likes 8.1U1, it's just not. I don't think anyone truly believes that it is, it's just a rallying point. When 8.1U2 arrives with the juiced up Start Menu, this particular argument should get real interesting.

It's not any better for searching: it's the same old same old which is why I find that I generally don't really care if I have the start screen or start menu. The effective pluses for the start screen are live tiles and a bigger pen board. Other parts like the application-menu are worse to use than the original hierarchical menu system found in the start menu. So it has those trade-offs, that's my assessment anyway.

 

Sanity. :D

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • 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.
    • Indeed - drives me mad - usually because Refresh is hidden in the full menu.
    • Firefox has had rounded corners for many years. I take it you're not a fan of modern browsers?
    • The problem is in the fundamentals of how businesses are allowed to operate and the change should happen in the basics and certain consumer friendly and moral practices should be enforced by law. This would fix so many things, not just this ages old default browser issue which is a tiny drop in the backut that includes a flood of privacy and other issues.
  • 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!