Conflict: Denied Ops Review

By Ellie Gibson Published 15 February, 2008

Gruesome twosome.

Version tested: Xbox 360

In which a burly, gruff black man with a machine gun and a muscly, gruff white man with a sniper rifle run around the world shooting foreigners in the name of justice. Or freedom or revenge or something else entirely; it's hard to tell and impossible to care. Yes, it's another game with the word Ops in the title, so expect lots of guns and grenades, tanks and helicopters, oil barrels to blow up and boxes to hide behind.

And it's another game with the word Conflict in the title, so if you're a fan of the series you might expect to control a four-man squad from a third-person perspective. But no. As designer Terry Watts told us earlier this year, Denied Ops is Pivotal's attempt to bring Conflict to a wider audience.

They reckon players were put off by the complexity of the tactics and control system in previous instalments. These elements have been simplified in a bid to create a tactical shooter anyone can pick up and play. The perspective has switched to first-person, and now you have only two men to control.

Lang is the one with the machine gun. According to some loading screen text, he "likes his combat up close and personal". He says things like "We clear, bro" and "We on it, bro" all the time. Graves is the sniper. He can move faster than Lang. He says things like, "Ghost one, Bad Wolf is at the door" and "I'm not your damn bro". Both of them wear ridiculous sunglasses.

Just the two of us

'Conflict: Denied Ops' Screenshot 1

Graves enjoys pina coladas and long walks in the rain, while Lang likes Latin jazz and The Archers.

Graves and Lang have a complex relationship. Well, complex if you have never seen any films and therefore cannot instantly predict the trajectory of their relationship as they realise they have more in common than they might have imagined despite their ostensibly contrasting personalities and come to admit a grudging respect for one another.

At first it's all "You limp-dicked motherf*****" and so on. A few levels in, one of them says something like, "I heard about what happened to your partner in Afghanistan," and the other one sinks to an all-new level of gruffness, and you want to turn off the game and enjoy something with more emotional depth, like Diagnosis Murder.

The rest of the plot is similarly tiresome. Missions take place in South America, Africa and Russia. There are tenuous explanations between them such as "We need to explore the diamond mine to find a direct link between Atongwe and the Ramirez regime." This translates as, "We need to go and hide behind some more boxes and shoot some more foreigners. Also we might go in a tank."

But it's not as if Conflict is the first shooter with a clichéd plot and characters, and it certainly won't be the last. To the gameplay, then. You can switch direct control between Graves and Lang at any time and issue commands with a single button press. The commands are things like "Follow me" and "Attack". Things you'd expect a highly trained special operative to do anyway if their partner was running off or an enemy was shooting at them, in fact.

Command and conkers

'Conflict: Denied Ops' Screenshot 2

Just one of the many pillars you get to hide behind in Conflict: Denied Ops.

During the preview stage of development, much was made of how you could issue commands to set traps or line-up flanking manoeuvres. In the finished game, this boils down to being able to tell your partner to shoot the men shooting at you - again, something you'd expect him to do anyway. Irritatingly, if you forget to press the button to make your partner follow you, he'll often just stay where he is. Even if he's under heavy fire and without cover.

When he inevitably dies you have to backtrack and heal him with a syringe, as if he's allergic to wasps and you have an epi-pen. When you're down, it often takes far too long for your partner to come and heal you. You can switch characters and do it yourself to speed up the process, but this doesn't do much for the flow of the game either.

The controls feel sloppy. Aiming is too fiddly and enemies can survive a surprising amount of direct shots to the chest, though their heads do pop open in a satisfying way if you're precise. The vehicles, which include tanks and hovercrafts, seem to float over the terrain and up the steepest of hills. Their weapons are generally tricky to aim and often implausibly ineffective.

Friendly fire

'Conflict: Denied Ops' Screenshot 3

Geordi La Forge goes paintballing.

There is more fun to be had in co-op mode. There are split-screen, System Link and online options, and each works fine. Being able to shout orders at an intelligent partner who won't just stand there if you forget to press the left trigger to make him follow you does improve the experience. However, other problems plaguing the single-player game, such as the loose controls and idiotic enemies, are still present.

And the game looks pretty rough however you play it. The textures aren't bad; there are some lovely bits of gravel. But overall it's lurid, blocky and poorly animated, and everyone looks like they're made out of hexagons.

To be fair, Pivotal has succeeded in the aim of making Conflict more accessible with Denied Ops. Anyone who's never played a shooter before should be able to pick up the game and progress through the levels without much frustration. If you don't care about clichéd characters, loose controls and repetitive set pieces, you might even have a nice time.

However, if you're a fan of Conflict and/or shooters in general, you're likely to find Denied Ops shallow and dull. The two-man control system doesn't work properly. The visuals are ugly. The script is sub-Armageddon. Yes, it's easy to pick up and play. But if you're after an experience with real challenge and depth, you won't want to.

5 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
Picture of Ellie.

About Ellie Gibson

Since joining Eurogamer in the mid 2000s, Ellie has written about subjects as diverse as the fall of Gizmondo, the rise of Hollyoaks actresses in Red Alert games and the noise a bear makes under NSFW circumstances.

Read more articles from Ellie by visiting the Ellie Gibson archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (52) Latest comment 4 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Fab4 #1 4 years ago

    Allowed Oops....



    ...did you see what I did there? ;)

  • captainrentboy #2 4 years ago

    I played this on break in work, it made me want to jab a knife through my heart after just 10 minutes.
    Terrible.

  • SwedBear #3 4 years ago

    Geordi La Forge - now that's a name I haven't head for a while.

  • Kelduum #4 4 years ago

    I kind of suspected as much after playing the demo.

    The fact reviews were pretty hard to come by (it was released last week) sort of confirmed it.

    Shame really - it was looking good originally.

    Also: Ellie reviews another dangerously average game!

  • jlaakso #5 4 years ago

    Shame. I was kind of looking forward to this and it was looking promising a while back.

  • Artemis_Matsas #6 4 years ago

    Yeah, i could see this coming since the dreadful demo.
    5 is generous.

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #7 4 years ago

    So we're two-for-two with the new 'Buddy-action movie' genre of coop-designed shooter games both being crap.

    What are the odds that Army of Two will make it a hat-trick?

  • muscleblade #8 4 years ago

    Waiting for Frontlines and Army of two. Those two will be good.

  • barnard666 #9 4 years ago

    conflict games have never really been any good, they simply didnt have much good competition in the past.

    Frontlines also looks pretty average, although certainly not as bad as this...I think 5 is generous!

  • systems #10 4 years ago

    ^Don't forget Vegas 2 isn't far away either.

  • Moonprince #11 4 years ago

    "5 is generous"

    Ukdev+1innit...

  • RedPanda #12 4 years ago

    Post deleted at 14:31:59 28-01-2012

  • tinners #13 4 years ago

    4 meh! still too high

  • symbiote #14 4 years ago

    This reads like a 3. What'cha holding back for EG?

  • Paleface #15 4 years ago

    The script is sub-Armageddon

    ouch.

  • w00t #16 4 years ago

    Hooray for accessible shite!

    Hooray for fucking up a perfectly decent franchise!

    Hooray for no more 4 player co-op (which was the main selling point for me)!

    Nice job fuckwits :(

  • Kazzahdrane #17 4 years ago

    Where's the Diagnosis Murder game anyway? I'd buy seven!

  • chudders #18 4 years ago

    I liek this review, it made me titter - and that's not a word I use lightly. Or at all, in fact.

    More reviews of shit games by Ellie please. It's funny when she's blithely cutting.

  • muscleblade #19 4 years ago

    "Frontlines also looks pretty average"

    I think Frontlines look pretty good and the reviews (not many) so far has been very positive.

    Im thinking an average score of about 8 for both Frontlines and army of two.

    Vegas 2 will be better but more standard.

  • Darren #20 4 years ago

    When I played the demo I had little idea this had anything to do with the earlier Conflict games on the Xbox/PS2 which I'd played the first two of and thought were great at the time. However, time has passed since then and there's been hundreds of shooters since, many far better. This new game seems so safe, generic and ordinary, like many other FPSs of late, that playing it is enough to make me really start to hate the genre with gusto. It's boring to play, the visuals are mediocre, the level design is bland, the weapons feel weak... there's nothing at all noteworthy about the game from the demo, it's just another production-run FPS made for people who still think this kind of thing "rocks".

  • Lexx87 #21 4 years ago

    Has Ellie reviewed a game that was more than 7 out of 10? :p

  • tinners #22 4 years ago

    yeah guitar hero 3.

  • Rirekon #23 4 years ago

    The demo was painful, I'd say 5 was generous but I've not played the full game

  • syphaa #24 4 years ago

    Can't say im completely shocked!
    Was always shaping up to be a bit of a disappointment.

    Holding out for Army of Two for Co-op goodness!
    Fingers crossed it plays well, im still not 100% convinced by it yet.

  • muscleblade #25 4 years ago

    @syphaa

    Im sure Army of Two is very entertaining in Co-op with a friend. On your own its just ok. Its made for coop. A friend of mine is a reviewer and he thought it was great playing it coop, but you should expect a llittle bit of arguing through the campain. The multiplayer (team deathmatch) is also very good.
    Edited by 1 at 15/02/08 @ 09:50

  • Salvia #26 4 years ago

    I was sent a movie that turned out to be an ad for this game. They must have known it was a stinker as they rely on having a large-breasted stripper in it...although saying that SCi have never been known for their class so they may well have made the ad even if it had been 9/10.

  • Kujata #27 4 years ago

    Have played this co-op with mates online and off and had a lot of fun. Sure, its rough around the edges and there's nothing new here, but the co-op makes it a 7/10 for me.

    With Army of Two, Saints Row 2 and Frontlines on the way hopefully the co-op trend will continue.

  • tinners #28 4 years ago

    "Have played this co-op with mates online and off and had a lot of fun. Sure, its rough around the edges and there's nothing new here, but the co-op makes it a 7/10 for me"

    Thats the funniest thing ive read all morning, good to see theres some clueless casual gamers still floating around here, 7/10 lol...please stop my sides!!!!! splitting!!!....encore encore!!!

  • muscleblade #29 4 years ago

    @Kujata

    Even average games can be rather entertaining in coop.

  • Darren #30 4 years ago

    @tinners - That was a bit uncalled for... a splitscreen or online co-op can make mediocre games far more enjoyable than they would be otherwise... haven't you ever played Doom 3 on the Xbox or Gears of War on the 360 that way? ;)

  • MuppetThumper #31 4 years ago

    talking of which the dialogue in Gears of Wank is equally risible.

  • tinners #32 4 years ago

    @Darren

    indeed you are right and yes it is a bit, you will have to excuse my bitterness i kinda knew what this was gonna get first hand.

    Co-op games i find are really enjoyable if the game itself is great or at least decent in the first place. GRAW 2 , Crackdown, Gears of War all good competant games in the first place, Army of Two will actually enforce proper co-op play etc.

    I get annoyed when a game has something tacked on for the sake of it etc, i remember when splinter cell pandora tomorrow came out on the PC and it was the first co-op game for me where you actually work together as a team, without the other player the levels could not be completed, with this and many other games the only thing co-op about it is that there's two people on screen killing shit, there is no co-op objective etc which is why army of two should piss on this and also makes me wish COD had this, because that makes war so much fun!

    I accept the enjoyment of a game is far greater when your playing with a mate but from 5/10 to 7/10 i just cant see where the enjoyment comes from an utterly generic game which we have all played for years on end already.

  • BBIAJ #33 4 years ago

    Downloaded demo, caned it twice, once as each character, completed it twice in online co-op, bought the full game, enjoying it.

    It's nothing new or special, it's just a good, solid, shooter.

  • muscleblade #34 4 years ago

    @BBIAJ

    I played the demo. This game is neither good or solid. But with a friend i believe it can be ok. Never solid though.

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #35 4 years ago

    @WaxBrazillian

    Touchy, aren't we?

    At least when blithely passing comments on games I haven't played, I take my standpoint from Eurogamer's review scores. And I think you'll find that the review and editorial 2007 top 50 standing here disagree with you.

    /smug

  • muscleblade #36 4 years ago

    @WaxBrazillian

    Your missing out on the best Coop game to date. Crackdown was fantastic.

  • BobsUncle #37 4 years ago

    co-op Crackdown is still only two people on screen killing shit.

  • Apologie #38 4 years ago

    horrible game

  • urban #39 4 years ago

    2/10 more like.

  • asphaltcowboy #40 4 years ago

    "...run around the world shooting foreigners in the name of justice."

    I've never heard it called that before! ;)

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #41 4 years ago

    @WaxBrazillian

    Woah, man, perhaps you should lay off the PCP. Maybe it's what's making you, like, totally gay :)


    In the interests of factual correctness, I must point out that I was not the producer on Crackdown. In fact I no longer work for Realtime Worlds. As such, I reverse the right to talk (either blithely or with great seriousness) whatever shite I like on internet forums.

  • asphaltcowboy #42 4 years ago

    What the hell is going on here?

    For the record, Crackdown was brilliant!

  • Daymare #43 4 years ago

    Why do you hate Mentalist(air) so much, WaxBrazillian?:)

    /intrigued

  • BadBoyBonner #44 4 years ago

    Crackdown rocked - it's demo was a little too generous.

  • darc #45 4 years ago

    LOL I've been reading this thread with the exact words "What the hell is going on here?" looping through my brain, and when I got to asphalt's post I had to laugh out loud.

    So am I to gather that some psycho in Brazil singlehandedly wrote a game called "Bomberman" and he has a personal vendetta vs. a mentalist, who single-handedly wrote Crackdown? And that everyone hates gay people? And also, what does any of this have to do with Conflict: Denied Ops?

  • BBIAJ #46 4 years ago

    @ muscleblade:

    How is it not solid?

    It does what it sets out to do perfectly well, and there's certainly nothing game breakingly awful about it, therefore it is never anything less than solid.

    To me at least...

  • Weezer #47 4 years ago

    Nice to see the game employs Xbox360's 'backwards compatibility' function to look like an Xbox 1 game.

    Instantly forgettable and doomed to miserable sales. The demo was a serious mistake... should have left a bit more to the imagination.

  • Davemanz #48 4 years ago

    Why can't you two stop the facade and admit that you're in love with each other?

    Anyway Crackdown is good bargain bin material.

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #49 4 years ago

    a cheap shot @ the work of "Denied Ops"

    If anything, I'm taking a cheap shot at Kane and Lynch. 7/10 isn't such a bad score, but Kane and Lynch's reputation was pretty much destroyed by the Gerstman affair.

    just because he was a member of the crackdown team

    It's you that started dragging my past work into this, presumably because you've been digging up my post history.

    everyone hates gay people

    No, just people who get oversensitive about words they need to look up on Dictionary.com.


    I've made an enemy, what fun! See you around trashing my posts on other topics in the future, WaxBrazillian...

  • DoKtoR #50 4 years ago

    Conflict: 4-Player, Denied.

  • tinners #51 4 years ago

    Didnt know bomberman had gone Fps LIVE co-op....??? Wow!

    good comparison lol.... also mega lo mania on the amiga is better than this, another similar game :)

  • JayPee #52 4 years ago

    For me, this game went against everything that *was* good in the series - i.e. 4-player co-op, picking up weapons, open maps with tactical-favoured approach.

    The demo was awful, the Edge review, and now this, al lead me to believe that this comment is the last time I actually need to think about this game. Shame as I really enjoyed Desert Storm and even enjoyed Vietnam back in the day.