It doesn't. Yeah, the game does eat the crap out of your hardware but then again, the engine does stuff no other engines do, at least not at that scale. And seriously, it's that Crysis story all over again. Just because maxed out details require hardware that was out of reach for the regular user upon release doesn't mean that it's unplayable on the average gaming rig. I bought a mid-class PC this summer and am playing the game on maxed out details except for the visibility which is still at like 6-7 kilometres, much more than necessary and certainly more than other shooters have. And also on the somewhat dated machine I had when the game was released it was perfectly playable on low to medium details. :P

Been a while since I've seen people talk about Beat-em-up games. Only game I can think of recently was Double Dragon Neon, which is more of a remake then a new game, but mostly it seems left on the sidelines.

I also remember the mission where you have to infiltrate a house and tap the phone, when unexpected happens and you have to think fast : )
I think NOLF is in league of its own though, nice characters, henchmen that dressed the same but had those funny and deep conversations behind doors, the locations, story..........I think it´s memorable, besides, it really made you think creative ways of using your gadgets, your weapons were not as realiable in every situation, it was not as simple as going guns blazing, it made you think every move and every take down, as leaving a body would attract unwanted attention, and when you did, it was a thrill to hide and see whether they´d found or keep searching elsewhere.
Actually I think it made you feel like a spy and not Rambo in a suit. Good "old" memories :D.

I miss survival horror

take heart my friend, indies has saved us:

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=102324622

I'd say DXHR of modern games (haven't played Dishonoured) is the most NOLF-like.

At least that I can think of.

I'd say there is a difference between "kill x" and "retrieve x" if only because I'm so tired of the former and it's starting to seem like it's not even very good for the story. When you're killing people every step of the road, getting somewhere and having to kill more people is just redundant. Let's pretend I'm here for a reason.

But I think the real factor in objective-based FPS games, at least along the lines I enjoyed, was the possibility that you might not do the objectives, intentionally or otherwise, or might even screw them up. GoldenEye, Perfect Dark and the Timesplitters games (same devs) made it so you had to actually work out how to accomplish the objectives, and if you didn't, you failed. If you prevented your own objective from completing, like blowing up a satelite dish you had to hijack later in the level, that screwed you too. Fantastic! I feel like I'm interacting with a real world - one where my objectives are for their own value and not because they cause the Xenite tentacle monster blocking my exit to mysteriously disappear; or the door at the end of the hall to suddenly be blown open by an ambush that wouldn't occur without me hacking an unrelated terminal.

The optional objectives in Black Ops 2 would also count, because you have the possibility of not pulling it off, and I applaud their efforts to expand the story that way. Even so much as a reward of additional text content makes going the extra mile worthwhile. Square Enix has been conducting that train ever since Kingdom Hearts showed them that players will do something arbitrary if it means more story information, but it's better when the task ISN'T arbitrary and, better, actually makes sense in the story as well.

Personally I prefer the idea that if you miss the objective, you lose, but that's only fair to the player if levels are GoldenEye-sized small or medium, easily repeatable.