Recommended Posts

Any DirectX stuff not working well, like DirectDraw, might be because they're between v11 and v12, no DX12 drivers for Windows 10 out either.

 

People who get a FPS boost in games right now could be benefiting from early CPU overhead reductions, that's the key to better frame rates.

xWhiplash, on 30 Jan 2015 - 10:15, said:xWhiplash, on 30 Jan 2015 - 10:15, said:

What are these killer apps that everybody keeps mentioning?  What are these MUST HAVES that do NOT exist in the desktop environment?  I am pretty sure I can use Facebook without needing a Facebook app.  I can use Netflix with a browser.  

 

Again, what is this stall you are referring to?  Even comparing Photoshop CS2 to CC has a huge change in features.  What modern app exists that does NOT exist on the desktop that is OMG SO AMAZING?  Even Angry Birds is on Steam.  Some of the most popular mobile apps are on Steam.  Better games are on Steam and the PC platform.  So how are things "stalled"?  

Netflix in a browser can't give you surround sound. At least the Windows 8 app can produce Dolby Digital 5.1 Plus.

They should switch all desktop apps to use modern Metro chrome, then it makes sense to show a Metro style dialog on the desktop. Otherwise its just inconsistent UI.

I would imagine that is exactly what they are trying to do. However doing that across the entire OS in a single go is a herculean task so they prioritise.

Every version of Windows has had an inconsistent UI. I never used Windows before 95 but I can say it had the most consistent UI out of every version since.

I would imagine that is exactly what they are trying to do. However doing that across the entire OS in a single go is a herculean task so they prioritise.

Every version of Windows has had an inconsistent UI. I never used Windows before 95 but I can say it had the most consistent UI out of every version since.

It isn't just 9x - has ANY version of NT since 3.x had a consistent UI?

 

It's a fair question - since NT4 adopted the 9x UI deliberately.

 

In other words, the last consistent UI of any versions of Windows were in the 3.x era - basically pre-9x.

 

However, that didn't stop Windows from getting to where it is today.

 

Basically, what does UI consistency have to do with it?

Basically, what does UI consistency have to do with it?

It's called creating an experience? You know a consistent visual interpretation similar to how OSX pays attention to great detail. Its the small things which makes the product/experience, and if you question that ooh dear.

It's called creating an experience? You know a consistent visual interpretation similar to how OSX pays attention to great detail. Its the small things which makes the product/experience, and if you question that ooh dear.

And how has having an inconsistent UI actually hurt Windows?

 

The point I am making is that Windows hasn't had a consistent UI through most of its history.  In other words, the lack of UI consistency is so irrelevant as to be laughable - and especially in terms of whether the OS itself is successful or not.

 

What typically matters as to the success of an operating system - ANY operating system - is three things.

 

1.  Stability of the operating system itself.

2.  Stability of the applications designed to run on the operating system.

3.  The user experience (not necessarily aesthetically-driven).

 

In fact, I can give you an entirely relevant case of an aesthetically-pleasing operating system that outright failed - NEXTstep.  (NEXTstep is an ancestor of OS X, and can be run in either VirtualBox or VMware today.)

Not only were the NEXTCubes aesthetically elegant, so was the OS that ran on them. Applications written for the OS were easily as elegant - if not more so - than anything else out there - including Windows NT

Yet it not only failed, but failed harder than even BeOS - which would come, and go, after it.  If anything, NEXTstep was more elegant than OSX has been since.

 

Basically, aesthetics isn't enough.

 

If aesthetics were enough, neither the DeLorean OR the Bricklin would have failed.

 

Aesthetics is icing - period.

 

If the "cake" falls apart - or tastes terrible - all the aesthetics in the world won't save it.

 

The issue for the critics is that they are so concerned with the aesthetics that they have utterly lost what an operating system is supposed to be about (the three numbered items above).

 

Except for issues with the SOE (now Daybreak) Launchpad, I have had exactly zero game or application issues - at all.  The only other preview versions of Windows to ring up a perfect score in application compatibility were the Consumer and Release Previews of Windows 8.  (That was something 7's Consumer Preview didn't do, that none of the Vista betas did, and something that XP's betas didn't do, either.)  All three OSes got properly hammered for that basic (very basic) metric failure (here on Neowin) - yet 10's Technical Preview does NOT fail in the same area - and that non-failure is basically dismissed out of hand?  Shades of Windows 8's Consumer and Release Previews - you are moving the goalposts on Microsoft again. 

  • Like 3

NEXTCubes

 

Let's put that into context though... they actually cost an absolute crap load of money, that's the main reason they failed.

 

Also, I agree with your sentiment, but I don't think we should settle with the status quo.

 

All the things you listed can be achieved and consistency can be created all at the same time. No one will argue your points away but why would you (almost seem to) be happy with the concept of consistency and and good aesthetics being thrown out the window?

 

I want my cake and I want to eat it.

 

I want to want to eat it.

 

Also, if the goalposts weren't moved, wouldn't we just end up with Windows 8.1 again?  :huh:

Let's put that into context though... they actually cost an absolute crap load of money, that's the main reason they failed.

 

Also, I agree with your sentiment but I don't think we should settle with the status quo.

 

All the things you listed can be achieved and consistency can be created all at the same time. No one will argue your points away but why would you (almost be) happy with the concept of consistency and and good aesthetics being thrown out the window?

 

I want my cake and I want to eat it.

 

I want to want to eat it.

But is it worth the resultant damage to the Windows marketshare to get it?

 

As much as you (and a few others) want a consistent UI/UX, the marketplace seems to disagree.

 

Where Windows HAS been consistent is in niche-OS areas (including RT, for that matter), and niche-only operating systems don't succeed commercially.

 

If anything, a major desktop OS needs SOME inconsistency for it to actually work.

 

OS X (the descendant of NEXTstep) has a non-consistent UI included with it - it's called Launchpad.  It looks nothing like the default OS X UI - yet you can, in fact, do darn near everything from there that you can from the default UI.  Could Launchpad be the ModernUI of OS X?  (In fact, the only difference between Launchpad and ModernUI is that the core OS functionality is NOT duplicated there - yet, and that it actually predates ModernUI - Launchpad goes back to SnowLeopard.)

 

Another reason for the "consistency" of the OS X default UI is that both it, and the hardware, are from the same company - Apple.  Apple is, by and large, made up of the folks that WROTE NEXTstep (which, toward the end, was indeed available for standard x86 PCs - albeit at Apple-sized mark-ups) - that is the version that can run on VirtualBox or VMware today.  Basically, OS X is a semi-closed OS (despite the BSD underpinnings).

 

Other than Surface, Microsoft doesn't make entire computers.  Instead, it is licensed to companies that do (from the Lenovos to the boutique and home-builder/BYOPC crowd).  Designs run the gamut.  If anything, consistency is something that PCs are known for NOT having - in terms of either hardware OR software.  In other words, the lack of consistency works in its favor - it gets licensed, sold, and used because it is NOT a straitjacket-OS.

 

Also, who is settling?  If we wanted to settle, there WOULD have been a hardware stall with 7 - however, that did NOT happen - far from it.

The issue is not just where do we go from a hardware POV, but where do we go from an application POV?

 

I'm in FAVOR of greater choice in applications - including ModernUI (both Win32 and even WinRT) applications.  I don't want either/or.

The issue I am facing with that is that the same folks arguing for consistency are also arguing in favor of complacency - not only in terms of OS, but in terms of hardware support.

If getting the complacency issue scuttled means dumping consistency (which Windows hasn't had since 3.x), I'm fine with that - especially given the Microsoft track record with consistent operating systems.

Back to the original question in the title, My view is that Microsoft is indeed ignoring the desktop. Why? Because if you look at the development frameworks that were used in the past for the desktop (Win Forms, Silverlight, WPF), they are either gone or pretty much in maintenance mode. They have already said that there are no new frameworks in the works. HTML5/Javascript/Xamarin are "where it's at" now and that's not the desktop.

Getting back on topic, it seems to me that the opposite it true. Microsoft seems to be focusing quite a bit on the desktop and fixing 8.x's shortcomings. I think they were brilliant in making it automatically change when you use a tablet or desktop. I was actually in the minority that liked the Metro screen but now that the start menu is back and with Metro tiles, I really like it.

 

My main issue is that MS cannot make a consistent UI. Ugly as it may be, I hope they make everything have the same windows graphics. However, I do wish they would give an option for more of a visually appealing style. And I don't want to use Windowblinds, I always thought that felt like a hack. Even though they have stepped back about 20 years with the ugly icon design, they need to make all of them have the same style. I'm sure that is a work in progress though like everything else. I also noticed that when I click the Cortana search field, a different style field displays above it offset a bit. it gives me the impression that they are just sticking new interface elements on top of old ones. Why can't they just make a single unified UI without feeling everything is skinned.

 

Also, I hate how their is a settings start menu item and then there is still a control panel. I really hope they do away with the control panel. It makes it confusing to try and figure out when to use Settings and when to use Control Panel.

I don't really think they are. I think that they're trying to unify both the tablet world and the desktop world, personally. Don't flame me for this, but on the desktop aspect, you're getting the best of both worlds, IMHO. Minus the touch aspect. Unless you're on a touch screen monitor. Look, you can't make everybody happy. Nobody can. But can you find a medium? Absolutely. Example: I like pizza. Especially home made pizza. It's good. (That's my fifty percent). However, I also like it when I don't have to make a huge mess making pizza, which is why I'm equally happy to call pizza hut. (The other fifty percent). It's an equal balance. At least for me. I'm just happy I have pizza, either way, when it comes down to it. Microsoft knows what they're doing by us tech preview users. I've beta tested for years, it's just that they finally decided to let more people in, and express their own opinions. Which I think, is good. So it's ok to think the way you do, OP. Variety is the spice of life! :) They'll get it right, and everything will be okay. Don't worry. It's a community effort, just like neowin started out as, and has flourished to be. Don't let the trees get in the way of the forest. ;)

What are people talking about regarding the desktop and customization not being a thing anymore? I run Win8.1 and my desktop is as customized as it's ever been.

Well, I am guess you are using Windowblinds or uxStyle. I'd like it if they had the option on the OS level. I've found WB to feel like a hack, it's slow, and not everything gets skinned. I'm just flabbergasted at why MS took a beautiful UI like they designed for Windows 7 and reduced it down to a single color title bar with black window controls. I remember a video of a guy from MS talking about how they did a study and found that people like to see controls that have depth and glow like real buttons on a panel. I always liked that philosophy and I think Windows 7 was the best looking OS they ever made. I just can't figure out why they want to go backwards and make it look so primitive. Same thing with the icons They are just ugly and have no effects and they barely even look antialiased.

  • Like 3

Well, I am guess you are using Windowblinds or uxStyle. I'd like it if they had the option on the OS level. I've found WB to feel like a hack, it's slow, and not everything gets skinned. I'm just flabbergasted at why MS took a beautiful UI like they designed for Windows 7 and reduced it down to a single color title bar with black window controls. I remember a video of a guy from MS talking about how they did a study and found that people like to see controls that have depth and glow like real buttons on a panel. I always liked that philosophy and I think Windows 7 was the best looking OS they ever made. I just can't figure out why they want to go backwards and make it look so primitive. Same thing with the icons They are just ugly and have no effects and they barely even look antialiased.

I agree. Back in the Windows 1 days, we didn't know how 'Modern' we really were!! :D

  • Like 1

I agree. Back in the Windows 1 days, we didn't know how 'Modern' we really were!! :D

 

LOL.  

 

Windows 2 also introduce overlapping windows like in windows 7.

Actually I love these tiles (Windows 8), because it looks fresh for me.

Probably most people hate tiles because that is what they see as opposed of start menu in Windows 8

And how has having an inconsistent UI actually hurt Windows?

 

The point I am making is that Windows hasn't had a consistent UI through most of its history.  In other words, the lack of UI consistency is so irrelevant as to be laughable - and especially in terms of whether the OS itself is successful or not.

 

What typically matters as to the success of an operating system - ANY operating system - is three things.

 

1.  Stability of the operating system itself.

2.  Stability of the applications designed to run on the operating system.

3.  The user experience (not necessarily aesthetically-driven).

 

In fact, I can give you an entirely relevant case of an aesthetically-pleasing operating system that outright failed - NEXTstep.  (NEXTstep is an ancestor of OS X, and can be run in either VirtualBox or VMware today.)

Not only were the NEXTCubes aesthetically elegant, so was the OS that ran on them. Applications written for the OS were easily as elegant - if not more so - than anything else out there - including Windows NT

Yet it not only failed, but failed harder than even BeOS - which would come, and go, after it.  If anything, NEXTstep was more elegant than OSX has been since.

 

Basically, aesthetics isn't enough.

 

If aesthetics were enough, neither the DeLorean OR the Bricklin would have failed.

 

Aesthetics is icing - period.

 

If the "cake" falls apart - or tastes terrible - all the aesthetics in the world won't save it.

 

The issue for the critics is that they are so concerned with the aesthetics that they have utterly lost what an operating system is supposed to be about (the three numbered items above).

 

Except for issues with the SOE (now Daybreak) Launchpad, I have had exactly zero game or application issues - at all.  The only other preview versions of Windows to ring up a perfect score in application compatibility were the Consumer and Release Previews of Windows 8.  (That was something 7's Consumer Preview didn't do, that none of the Vista betas did, and something that XP's betas didn't do, either.)  All three OSes got properly hammered for that basic (very basic) metric failure (here on Neowin) - yet 10's Technical Preview does NOT fail in the same area - and that non-failure is basically dismissed out of hand?  Shades of Windows 8's Consumer and Release Previews - you are moving the goalposts on Microsoft again. 

thanks for not replying to the original statement... as usual you type out a long ass reply which tries to confuse and be as off topic as possible. I think you need help replying to comments..

Ask Windows 8.

Exactly, windows 8 and metro was shunned by consumer, and that can't be argued because of a disjointed and poor pieced togerther Metro interface. You can argue all you want, the stats and sales numbers and adoption rate of Windows 8 are all there PGhammer./

thanks for not replying to the original statement... as usual you type out a long ass reply which tries to confuse and be as off topic as possible. I think you need help replying to comments..

Exactly, windows 8 and metro was shunned by consumer, and that can't be argued because of a disjointed and poor pieced togerther Metro interface. You can argue all you want, the stats and sales numbers and adoption rate of Windows 8 are all there PGhammer./

I don't think so. I believe some people like the clean look of Windows 8 or some people who don't care about UX at all, what distract them from Windows 8 is confusing (like PC Settings, start menu replacement, and flyout menu), hence there are some downgrade from Windows 8 to Windows 7. My friend love windows 8, especially on touchscreen, but he decided to downgrade to windows 7 because he don't understand windows 8 (he gives up when he saw start screen)

Well, I am guess you are using Windowblinds or uxStyle. I'd like it if they had the option on the OS level. I've found WB to feel like a hack, it's slow, and not everything gets skinned. I'm just flabbergasted at why MS took a beautiful UI like they designed for Windows 7 and reduced it down to a single color title bar with black window controls. I remember a video of a guy from MS talking about how they did a study and found that people like to see controls that have depth and glow like real buttons on a panel. I always liked that philosophy and I think Windows 7 was the best looking OS they ever made. I just can't figure out why they want to go backwards and make it look so primitive. Same thing with the icons They are just ugly and have no effects and they barely even look antialiased.

exactly!

It isn't just 9x - has ANY version of NT since 3.x had a consistent UI?

 

It's a fair question - since NT4 adopted the 9x UI deliberately.

 

In other words, the last consistent UI of any versions of Windows were in the 3.x era - basically pre-9x.

 

However, that didn't stop Windows from getting to where it is today.

 

Basically, what does UI consistency have to do with it?

 

That was exactly my point.  UI inconsistency is inevitable with the sheer size of Windows and the number of elements that would need to be refactored with every release.  There is an element of diminishing returns here.

 

That doesn't mean that none of the UI should move forward.

 

I didn't comment on the 3.x releases because I never used them - I lived in the RISC OS world at the time.

That was exactly my point.  UI inconsistency is inevitable with the sheer size of Windows and the number of elements that would need to be refactored with every release.  There is an element of diminishing returns here.

 

That doesn't mean that none of the UI should move forward.

 

I didn't comment on the 3.x releases because I never used them - I lived in the RISC OS world at the time.

 

All I'm saying is, it wouldn't hurt to have consistency.

 

There's no urgent need to long for it, things have been fine all along without it (and I agree it has definitely been lacking!) but also, at the same time, I can't see why consistency would hurt anything either and would be a nice extra in future versions of windows. If there's no question about consistency, we wouldn't be having this debate about it. It would lay it to bed.

 

I'm not sure we're all thinking about the same sort of consistency in this discussion. I'm talking more about the final polish and veneer, like ALL legacy icons replaced, odd ui quirks ironed out and such. Not a total unification of windows for all devices.

All I'm saying is, it wouldn't hurt to have consistency.

 

There's no urgent need to long for it, things have been fine all along without it (and I agree it has definitely been lacking!) but also, at the same time, I can't see why consistency would hurt anything either and would be a nice extra in future versions of windows. If there's no question about consistency, we wouldn't be having this debate about it. It would lay it to bed.

 

I'm not sure we're all thinking about the same sort of consistency in this discussion. I'm talking more about the final polish and veneer, like ALL legacy icons replaced, odd ui quirks ironed out and such. Not a total unification of windows for all devices.

 

It certainly would not hurt to have consistency. I don't think that there is any debate on the subject, and doubt very much that Microsoft themselves would debate the subject.

 

The question is if there can't be complete consistency, should we not move forward at all?

Ask Windows 8.

Windows 8 wasn't tossed because the UI wasn't consistent - Windows 7 didn't have a consistent UI, either.  Windows 8 was launched in a bad economy - which is a far easier wall to avoid. (The best evidence of that is sales of PCs since the current recovery began.  PCs - from traditional desktops and portables to non-traditional desktops and portables - are selling again.  By and large, it is NOT 7 that is on them - instead, it's 8.1 - which STILL lacks a Start menu - or a consistent UI.)

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!