Recommended Posts

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)

All THAT means is that the issue - for him - was unfamiliarity - not consistency.

 

Unfamiliarity as an issue I get - there's not a thing wrong with admitting that.  (I even pointed that out as a reason why folks would pass - back during the Previews of 8.)  However, unfamiliarity has nothing to do with UI consistency.

Second, PC Settings is, in fact, new with the 10 Technical Preview - 8 and 8.1 have Control Panel, which was largely unchanged from 7.

Thirdly, a consistent UI may be desirable; however, it should not get in the way of the more critical elements of a successful OS - especially one that is going to be a successor to my current OS.

 

To remind the audience what those three elements are, they are as follows -

 

1.  It must perform at least as well as the OS it is bidding to replace.  (This is non-negotiable.)

2.  It must run all the same software as the operating system that it is bidding to replace.  (Again, this is not negotiable.)

3.  It must support the hardware supported by the previous OS - at minimum.  (If it supports MORE hardware, that's fine; however, it should not force spendy upgrades merely for the same usability metric as the OS it is looking to replace.)

 

Note that a consistent UI is not on that list - it's not there because it is, at best, a SECONDARY metric - not a primary one.

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.

So what do you add to the desktop frameworks that developers would necessarily use (or want to use) - since the new frameworks are deemed (by you) as to not be acceptable for desktop usage?

You are basically asking that NO new desktop frameworks be added - that means that the developers are, in point of fact, constrained to existing frameworks.  That is - in your own words - not consistent. (That same attitude is exactly what I mean by "Do not advance!" - you want to stick with the familiar, and the desktop-application developers are, in fact, largely listening (except Microsoft, that is).  It's not that the new frameworks can't be used there - Modern Design Language can, and is, being used there.  However, you are trying to banish even MDL from the desktop - in the name of familiarity and complacency - not consistency.)

 

Not even developers want to be constrained forever - that is why they are moving into non-constrained areas (such as Android, and iOS, and even (surprisingly) the WinRT API) - they are not as constrained by API standards as the older desktop APIs (not just Win32, but even the OS X desktop API).  However, there IS still a place for the older desktop APIs - even Win32.  Not one user, including me, is saying otherwise.  If a "pure" (consistent-UI) OS doesn't work (the failure of Windows RT should make that rather obvious - I called that same "pure" OS a hedge-bet), that means that new frameworks must be able to exist alongside the older (and admittedly more proven with users) frameworks.  Again, unfortunately for you, Windows 8+ (including the Technical Previews of 10) does get that right.

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?

I'm not arguing against consistency per se - I'm arguing in favor of addressing the primary metrics first - and UI consistency is way down on the priority list - as it should be.

Also, I doubt that consistency is the real aim of those arguing in favor of moving it to a primary metric - especially since they are also arguing in favor of the non-use of new APIs and frameworks on the desktop (such as Modern Design Language).  On the one hand, they hate the new APIs (they actually see them as competing with the old ones) and want to consign them to perdition - on the other hand, they see existing desktop APIs as being bland and boring.  That isn't consistent at all - if anything, it is the opposite.  It sounds like the real desire is that all developers must use the old APIs - that is either complacency or development-by-diktat.

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.

 

Sad, but true - MS has never been good at consistency.

Take Vista, and then Windows 8 again. Both times inconsitency had reached a critical mass, and both times MS was burned badly by the massive unpopularity.

 

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./

 

Our Sledge Hammer has never mastered the skill of reading comprehension and thus always goes off on a tangent, talking about completely disjointed and irrelevant stuff. That's why he drones on an on about asthetics like a broken record, while totally ignoring any actual arguments.

 

Sad, but true - MS has never been good at consistency.

Take Vista, and then Windows 8 again. Both times inconsitency had reached a critical mass, and both times MS was burned badly by the massive unpopularity.

 

 

Our Sledge Hammer has never mastered the skill of reading comprehension and thus always goes off on a tangent, talking about completely disjointed and irrelevant stuff. That's why he drones on an on about asthetics like a broken record, while totally ignoring any actual arguments.

And yet you do the samething...

 

pot_kettle_black.jpg

Please - the only thing that was shunned by the consumer was anything having to do with computers.  Tablets sold, smartphones sold.  PCs (regardless of OS) didn't sell - by your definition, Windows 7 (which was out when the economy fell down) was ALSO a failure - same applies to OS X, which also had sales tank.  New hardware was affected because would-be purchasers went to tablets and smartphones instead of PCs (or Macs).  Upgrades didn't happen because there was no compelling reason to upgrade - despite the hardware requirements being unchanged.  It's FAR easier to not spend money in a bad economy. (I made precisely that point during the Consumer Preview - go back and read that thread.)

 

Further, the recovery is making mincemeat out of your argument - PCs are selling again, and largely they come with Windows 8.1.  Mac sales are up as well - that means that the recovery - like the downturn - was across the computing board.  Tablet sales, however, are down; eaten into by larger-screen phones and the phablet category (folks "trading up").

 

In other words, it is STILL the economy.

Sad, but true - MS has never been good at consistency.

Take Vista, and then Windows 8 again. Both times inconsitency had reached a critical mass, and both times MS was burned badly by the massive unpopularity.

 

 

Our Sledge Hammer has never mastered the skill of reading comprehension and thus always goes off on a tangent, talking about completely disjointed and irrelevant stuff. That's why he drones on an on about asthetics like a broken record, while totally ignoring any actual arguments.

Explain how/why WIndows 7 sold better then. It shares almost all of the inconsistencies of Vista/8 (almost because it lacked things unique to Vista/8).

Explain how/why WIndows 7 sold better then. It shares almost all of the inconsistencies of Vista/8 (almost because it lacked things unique to Vista/8).

BajiRav - he is trying to make the complacency argument; the issue WITH the argument is that it requires not looking at all the data.

 

His argument is based on looking at Windows 8 sales in isolation - he is assuming economic conditions were the same as those during 7's initial success.  They weren't - in fact, 7's own sales tanked during the early part of the Great Recession - and didn't recover.  7 and 8 overlapped during the Great Recession; because that Great Recession continued, 8 didn't sell well, and especially on new hardware.  However, new computing hardware as a whole sold poorly - including sales of Macs.  What sold instead?  Tablets, smartphones, even feature phones - especially in developing countries such as the BRIC.  None of it is as pricey as a PC - even a low-end PC.  How is it Windows 8's "fault" that Macs don't sell?

 

The current recovery is another piece of data he refuses to look at for the same reason - it undercuts the complacency argument still further.  PCs (of all sorts) are selling again - and by and large, it's not 7 on them.  PCs with touch are ALSO selling in greater numbers - in categories where touch and non-touch overlap (such as AIOs), they are selling in identical numbers.  (Basically, so much for touch being rejected.)

 

His argument is deliberately lacking data AND it is rather simplistic - so simplistic that I'm tempted to reject it out of hand.  However, I'm actually trying to give him the benefit of the doubt.

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.

 

But that really isn't an excuse for the bundled applications and UI of a clean install of Windows to be such an inconsistent mess. Microsoft cannot force third parties to update their code and clean up their interface but one would expect at the very least that Windows 10 on a clean boot up shouldn't have a single GDI object listed in the Task Manager - that the whole GUI and bundled applications should be re-written using WinRT with the only applications linking to the win32/GDI/MFC are legacy applications that haven't been updated yet. Microsoft have the man power - the fact that they haven't done it and still fail to do it in Windows 10 tells me more about laziness in Microsoft more than anything else.

What GDI objects\process are you talking about?

But that really isn't an excuse for the bundled applications and UI of a clean install of Windows to be such an inconsistent mess. Microsoft cannot force third parties to update their code and clean up their interface but one would expect at the very least that Windows 10 on a clean boot up shouldn't have a single GDI object listed in the Task Manager - that the whole GUI and bundled applications should be re-written using WinRT with the only applications linking to the win32/GDI/MFC are legacy applications that haven't been updated yet. Microsoft have the man power - the fact that they haven't done it and still fail to do it in Windows 10 tells me more about laziness in Microsoft more than anything else.

What GDI objects\process are you talking about?

 

Open up task scheduler, add 'GDI Objects' to the column then look.

 

btw, don't top post, post below the quoted text so that the replies go I chronological order.

HawkMan, on 07 Feb 2015 - 21:58, said:HawkMan, on 07 Feb 2015 - 21:58, said:

desktop perfected with windows 7...

no, nothing is ever perfect, especially not in the ever fluid and evolving world of computing

in my opinion they already "perfected the desktop" with 2000/XP, but this was at a time when new, better hardware was constantly coming out (commercial processors were all single-core), wifi wasn't a thing yet, graphics resolutions where way below the HD threashold, SATA drives didn't exist etc. Windows 7 came out in 2009 and the hardware has kind of stagnated since then. So yes, I'm gonna say that at least for a long while, windows 7 can be considered perfect (Vista too, at least after the service packs).

in my opinion they already "perfected the desktop" with 2000/XP, but this was at a time when new, better hardware was constantly coming out (commercial processors were all single-core), wifi wasn't a thing yet, graphics resolutions where way below the HD threashold, SATA drives didn't exist etc. Windows 7 came out in 2009 and the hardware has kind of stagnated since then. So yes, I'm gonna say that at least for a long while, windows 7 can be considered perfect (Vista too, at least after the service packs).

 

wow... so on one hand you say it was perfect but then computers evolved(yah, duh, they do that constantly) so it became more perfect with 7, and then it was perfect.... as if stuff hasn't happened with computers since then and nothing will happen. like new and better inputs, new displays, and so on and so on...

in my opinion they already "perfected the desktop" with 2000/XP, but this was at a time when new, better hardware was constantly coming out (commercial processors were all single-core), wifi wasn't a thing yet, graphics resolutions where way below the HD threashold, SATA drives didn't exist etc. Windows 7 came out in 2009 and the hardware has kind of stagnated since then. So yes, I'm gonna say that at least for a long while, windows 7 can be considered perfect (Vista too, at least after the service packs).

The improvements are still coming hard and fast - however, they are mostly in the areas that hadn't seen much in the way of improvement while all the changes were going on elsewhere.

 

Displays - not only is 1080p a display standard, it's even gone portable - and touch support in displays is following 1080p into ubiquity.  (I'm not talking portable hardware - not even notebooks; I'm talking desktops - not alone the AIO space.  What is the spread TODAY between identical - except for touch support - 23" displays today?)

4K-capable GPUs - $200USD - at retail, and right now.  (Even more surprising, I'm talking single-GPU here, and mainstream at that.)

SSDs - Would you believe 500GB/512GB SSDs - and affordable?  Even for - yikes! - laptop or notebook use?  (Bigger shocker - they are physically SMALLER than the platter drives they would replace, use less power, and are three to four times their capacity.  Example #1 - Crucial's MX-200 500GB lower-end SSD (direct competition  - Samsung 850 EVO of the same capacity).  Price at Crucial Direct - $249.99. (http://www.crucial.com/usa/en/ssd/ct500mx200ssd1)  Example #2 - the aforementioned SAMSUNG 850 EVO of the same capacity - $229.99USD at any retail MicroCenter or microcenter.com. (http://www.microcenter.com/product/442387/850_EVO-Series_500GB_SATA_III_60Gb-s_25_Internal_SSD_Single_Unit_Version_MZ-75E500B-AM).  Either drive is physically smaller than the 150GB SATA HDD in my HP dv9700 Altec Lansing Edition legacy notebook (the planned target), despite trumping the capacity by a factor of greater than two.  As to why such a large SSD in a legacy notebook, nothing prevents the notebook from lasting another five years except the current HDD capacity - in fact, it runs Windows 10 Technical Preview today.  Either drive absolutely fixes the capacity issue - not to mention the performance issue, and - as illustrated - neither is exactly pricey, even for a legacy notebook.

 

However, even taking JUST those changes into account, sticking with the same old software, and not moving, still locks you into a cage.  It may be a well-gilded cage, but a prison made of gold is still a prison - do you really want to live there forever?

 

That is very much the trap of complacency - when you get complacent, you are basically building your own prison cell.  If you're a tech company, you become IBM - which is actually facing ejection from the S&P 500.  I hate even the IDEA of prison - and I don't want to live down to the example of IBM, either.  It's why I have been constantly evaluating operating systems AND application software - since prior to Windows 9x. (I don't evaluate Windows in a vacuum - the same applies to the application software for it.)

ow... so on one hand you say it was perfect but then computers evolved(yah, duh, they do that constantly) so it became more perfect with 7, and then it was perfect.... as if stuff hasn't happened with computers since then and nothing will happen. like new and better inputs, new displays, and so on and so on...

 

It didn't become more perfect with 7. Just got on with the times.

It didn't become more perfect with 7. Just got on with the times.

 

You mean it evolved.... but while you say it got better/evolved, you're on the other hand sayign it shouldn't evolve further.. even though the win 7 desktop has huge and major known faults that are improved upin in 8, 8.1 and more so in 10 and still has more improvements to go which may or may not come during win 10 dev or later in win10 or 11's life. 

HawkMan, on 08 Feb 2015 - 01:34, said:HawkMan, on 08 Feb 2015 - 01:34, said:HawkMan, on 08 Feb 2015 - 01:34, said:HawkMan, on 08 Feb 2015 - 01:34, said:

You mean it evolved.... but while you say it got better/evolved, you're on the other hand sayign it shouldn't evolve further.. even though the win 7 desktop has huge and major known faults that are improved upin in 8, 8.1 and more so in 10 and still has more improvements to go which may or may not come during win 10 dev or later in win10 or 11's life. 

 

Not sure what you mean, what I said was, today if I had to choose between windows 7 and XP I'd obviously choose 7 because I probably wouldn't even be able to install XP. Not for any other kind of reason (eg. not because I like aero better). I guess you can say it "evolved" but probably that's not a very accurate way of putting it. Also please name three "huge and major" faults in 7. I know I can name 3 in windows 8.

Windows 7

- Doesn't support full positioning of multi monitors

- Taskbar on only one monitor with multi monitor

- By extension limited, well no, support for setting up how you want apps split on the task bar. 

- limited size of the list of quick access apps, also small icons causing you to search forever to find the apps you want int he list, as opposed to a unlimited size list of favorite apps on the start screen, and while at most the menu offers a list of some 8-16 apps on a monitors, you have 30-50 without scrolling and easily findable on the start screen, that was before they added small size tiles, with small size tiles, it's up to 4 times as many, but since some you want to highlight with normal and large tiles, make it 2-3 times as many, and that's on a regular 1176 laptop screen. on a larger screen it's a whole lot more. 

- horribly messy "aero" theme that is messy and chaotic in use(look for the picture earlier in this thread where the guy was trying to show how "good" it was and only ended up showing how bad it was"

- The right click in lower left corner menu.

- the file copier in windows 8+ is beyond awesome

- vastly improved task manager

- Ability to see impact of startup apps and easily disable or enable them as you see fit. 

- native mounting of virtual driver/images.

- windows refresh (not really something I use, but for tech support)

- Account sync

 

oh you said 3....

HawkMan, on 08 Feb 2015 - 02:59, said:

Windows 7

- Doesn't support full positioning of multi monitors

- Taskbar on only one monitor with multi monitor

- By extension limited, well no, support for setting up how you want apps split on the task bar. 

- limited size of the list of quick access apps, also small icons causing you to search forever to find the apps you want int he list, as opposed to a unlimited size list of favorite apps on the start screen, and while at most the menu offers a list of some 8-16 apps on a monitors, you have 30-50 without scrolling and easily findable on the start screen, that was before they added small size tiles, with small size tiles, it's up to 4 times as many, but since some you want to highlight with normal and large tiles, make it 2-3 times as many, and that's on a regular 1176 laptop screen. on a larger screen it's a whole lot more. 

- horribly messy "aero" theme that is messy and chaotic in use(look for the picture earlier in this thread where the guy was trying to show how "good" it was and only ended up showing how bad it was"

- The right click in lower left corner menu.

- the file copier in windows 8+ is beyond awesome

- vastly improved task manager

- Ability to see impact of startup apps and easily disable or enable them as you see fit. 

- native mounting of virtual driver/images.

- windows refresh (not really something I use, but for tech support)

- Account sync

 

oh you said 3....

none of these seem major faults to me but that's just me. Some of them aren't even valid though. Just because file copier has a nice graph in windows 8 and there's a better task manager doesn't make these features crap in windows 7. You don't need the right click in the lower left of the menu in W7 because there's a start menu (how often are you gonna use it for anything other than opening the control panel? and I know you're gonna say you're a pro user and you need cmd every minute of the day but if you're implying that a feature that saves you 3 seconds of pressing win+r and typing cmd is an essential part of the OS you need to rethink your priorities).

Some people find it easier to scroll down to a vertical list of apps than look at squares that are scattered all over the place. Again that's just preference though. Multi screen support is pretty much the only real lack and I would definitely not call it "huge and terrible flaw"...

Windows 7

- Doesn't support full positioning of multi monitors

- Taskbar on only one monitor with multi monitor

- By extension limited, well no, support for setting up how you want apps split on the task bar. 

- limited size of the list of quick access apps, also small icons causing you to search forever to find the apps you want int he list, as opposed to a unlimited size list of favorite apps on the start screen, and while at most the menu offers a list of some 8-16 apps on a monitors, you have 30-50 without scrolling and easily findable on the start screen, that was before they added small size tiles, with small size tiles, it's up to 4 times as many, but since some you want to highlight with normal and large tiles, make it 2-3 times as many, and that's on a regular 1176 laptop screen. on a larger screen it's a whole lot more. 

- horribly messy "aero" theme that is messy and chaotic in use(look for the picture earlier in this thread where the guy was trying to show how "good" it was and only ended up showing how bad it was"

- The right click in lower left corner menu.

- the file copier in windows 8+ is beyond awesome

- vastly improved task manager

- Ability to see impact of startup apps and easily disable or enable them as you see fit. 

- native mounting of virtual driver/images.

- windows refresh (not really something I use, but for tech support)

- Account sync

 

oh you said 3....

 

 

Red are major flaws, green while not major flaws perhaps are extremely important upgrades for power users.

 

the right click power user menu has no real substitute in the start menu, most of the items you need to go through the control panel to find or other places, or search.

 

and yes, terrible multi mon support is a MAJOR and terrible flaw. 

Unfortunately Windows 8's file copier doesn't support queueing so that makes it next to useless and not a suitable replacement for Teracopy. That despite dozens of comments requesting that very feature back in the day, that were obviously dismissed by Microsoft.

 

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/08/23/improving-our-file-management-basics-copy-move-rename-and-delete.aspx

However, even taking JUST those changes into account, sticking with the same old software, and not moving, still locks you into a cage.  It may be a well-gilded cage, but a prison made of gold is still a prison - do you really want to live there forever?

 

That is very much the trap of complacency - when you get complacent, you are basically building your own prison cell.  If you're a tech company, you become IBM - which is actually facing ejection from the S&P 500.  I hate even the IDEA of prison - and I don't want to live down to the example of IBM, either.  It's why I have been constantly evaluating operating systems AND application software - since prior to Windows 9x. (I don't evaluate Windows in a vacuum - the same applies to the application software for it.)

 

And your solution to that is to just throw crap at the wall until some of it sticks? Making change for the sake of change is just as stupid.

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!