Bennett: Ben, I was so happy when that little Messenger window from you popped up, informing me that Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising had hit our magical journalist Steam accounts. Straddling the no man’s land between Call of Duty and ArmA2, I had a lot of questions I wanted answered about this promising game. Things like whether it actually made sense to compare this to ArmA2, and whether it was a decent PC shooter or just a cheap console port? Also, what was the online game like? I’ve spent many a night playing both ARMA2 (with you) and COD, so I thought we'd be perfectly positioned to look at this game from the perspective of PC gamers with a focus on co-op and multiplayer.

Ben: Let's get the 'vs ArmA2' stuff quickly out of the way first, eh? OFP:DR actually feels like a different enough game that any comparison is academic only. One could play and enjoy both, you don't have to choose.

Bennett: To me this actually feels more like the original Ghost Recon games – a mixture of scripted battles, over large areas, with sim-lite elements. It’s a damn site more polished than ArmA2 though, that’s for sure. But that’s due to the much narrower focus of OFP:DRthan ArmA2, with a vastly smaller armoury. There’s still plenty of weaponry though – what did you think of the guns and vehicles in this game?

Ben: Yep, it's more polished because there's much less to polish. There are vehicles in OFP:DR? Gee, I didn't notice - unless you are talking about the crappy Hummer that's near impossible to control with any finesse. Or the chopper you get to fly in just a couple of missions, which doesn't support a joystick. Or the big dumb truck. Still, it's a running-gunning game, with you as the star of a fantasy war movie. And that's acceptable, but it still all combines to remove any sense that you're part of a military service. And you don't feel involved in a bigger picture war than the disparate missions keep you isolated from, or that you have to do any real planning, or make use of the tools of the trade, like, gee, actually being able to choose your load-out before a mission...

Bennett: I’m not too fussed about picking my weapons before a mission – do you think a real trooper gets to waltz down to the local gun store before a battle to decide whether he’d like a G-36 or M4A1? Nope. The limited selection on offer are exactly what the pros use and they’ve been modelled wonderfully. Totally agree with your distaste for the vehicle handling, and it gets even worse online for some reason. Thankfully I love the gun handling – there’s real bullet drop and you need to lead distant targets. The guns sway a little as well, making long distance battles prolonged fights to see who can get the first accurate shot. If only the sound effects were a little beefier than the pew-pew sounds. I’m surprised you didn’t notice the vehicles – for me, in the missions that use them, they are one of the standout features of the game. The thrill of stalking into battle alongside a convoy of APCs and Humvees, while angry Cobras buzz overhead, is one of my defining OFP: DR moments.

Ben: But I want the choice to be a buzzing Cobra overhead, or with my squad in one of those APCs. Whenever I want, not when the mission script dictates it. The developers said a few months ago that OFP: DR would be an "open sandbox" world. That was a porky pie, we now know. See, what the game does do, it does well enough. I really enjoy playing it. It just doesn't do enough. Once I've finished the campaign I'll never play it again. That's a crying shame. It's going to like every other 10 hour action game. Played then shelved.

Technically, it's superb. The graphics are just right, the world looks great and runs like a greased rat on ice. The effects are awesome. The sounds are very good. The mission design is clever and enjoyable. There is scope to do things differently in a re-play, but not by enough. You could go over the hill instead of through the valley. Walk instead of taking a Hummer. But the rightway is always the way of the waypoint. You're not rewarded for being clever. Its legs will be in multi-play and modding - you feeling good about how that was implemented?

Bennett: As we’ve both seen over the last few nights, co-op is fantastic. While the AI in singleplayer is very strong if used correctly, and their ability to flank and suppress is some of the best I’ve seen in a tactical shooter, AI team mates have an annoying tendency to walk directly into the line of fire. In co-op this isn’t a problem, although your Johnny Rambo tactics are sometimes equally annoying. Co-op in OFP:DR is like most games though; take an average game, inject a decent co-op system, and it’s suddenly a whole lot more enjoyable. OFP: DR does co-op pretty well – there’s not a hint of lag, even during massive battles, and there’s even has a friend/invite system. Sadly this friend system is broken, which is why you and I spent two hours trying to figure out which ports to open before realising it was a bug. Still, regardless of this horrible beginning, I’ve had an awesome time playing co-op over the last few nights. And that’s even with the excruciatingly painful lack of a checkpoint system, which requires us to redo the first 40 minutes of a mission every time we die just before the end. Singleplayer is nice, but co-op is the reason people will buy this game.

"Technically, it's superb. The graphics are just right, the world looks great and runs like a greased rat on ice. The effects are awesome. The sounds are very good."

But don’t get me started on the adversarial online mode. Codemasters has totally screwed this part of the game. In their infinite wisdom, they’ve decided to make this PC shooter peer to peer, without a dedicated server. Yep, console portitis at its absolute worst. The result is an unplayable mess of laggy games. Throw in the fact that you can’t join a game in progress, and online OFP:DR is 100% doomed. It appears Codies has absolutely no intention of ever releasing a dedicated server either. This simply doesn’t cut it – every other quality shooter offers a decent singleplayer and multiplayer experience. I just don’t get it, do you?

Ben: It's baffling. So close... the lack of a dedicated server is inexplicable. But yes, as a co-op experience it's absolutely brilliant. Let's just note that the built-in voice comms is rubbish, unless you enjoy scratchy low-volume static. Realistic, I guess... we ended up using Skype, of all things, crystal-clear with zero impact on lag. Recommended.

I want to keep playing in this game world after the campaign, and thanks to a bundled mission editor, I'm confident. The community will create scenarios that appeal to all tastes, though you can only place a max of 63 units in a scenario, which is just stupid given the potential for really clever mission design. What remains to be seen is how open it is to modders. I'd love to see more vehicles and environments, plus tweaking of the graphics -- and there's a lot of headroom for better textures and object detail with such a beautifully smooth 3D engine. The UI could be improved, the POV is too tight, and someone needs to fix the 'hardcore' mode so it keeps the vicious combat and keeps the compass, which is curiously omitted at that setting. Modders can sort all that out.

But as it stands, the boxed game is hard to fault, I loved it instantly. It's a step up from the likes of CoD, and I can see it being enjoyed by the quick-fix action gamers looking for a grander battlefield with the same production values. Let's be clear, despite some techy quibbles, it's a very polished game. It's only a couple of wee omissions that hold it back. I do love it, really

Bennett: I’m not sure what you mean by a step up from CoD – if you mean in terms of tactics and difficulty, I second that, but if you’re referring to production values and overall quality, I have to disagree. I really do enjoy the co-op part of the game, but at the rate we’re going we’ll have seen it all within eight hours. And I’m not sure if eight hours of solid, good fun is worth the asking price. Multiplayer will die a rapid, short death, mark my words, and I’m not as confident as you about the modding of the game – I think those who want to tinker will instead go for the more flexible, and arguably more powerful, ARMA2 sandbox.

"OFP:DR is a solid first step for the series reboot, and I’m really looking forward to seeing where Codies can take it. It’s strange to see them ignore some of the fundamentals of PC shooters though..."

Having said that, OFP:DR is a solid first step for the series reboot, and I’m really looking forward to seeing where Codies can take it. It’s strange to see them ignore some of the fundamentals of PC shooters (dedicated servers, mission and level variety, etc) but hopefully by the sequel these issues will be fixed. In the meantime, don’t expect anything more out of OFP:DR than a fun, albeit short, co-op shooter to play with your mates, and you won’t be disappointed.

Ben: I mean it's a CoD step up in that it has the full modern combat stuff - running around with M16s, in a slick and tight 'game' world, with all the production values a major publisher releasing across cross-platforms can bring. ArmA2 (and I've really been trying hard to hold back from doing that comparison!), is possibly one of the last great PC games. It's buggy, imperfect, but with a huge scale, catering only for the hardcore, and completely open to modding. As we've agreed, this sits between them.

And the second I've finished writing this I'm jumping straight back to our co-op campaign (and I know you're waiting for me to finish this so we can!). It's as addictive and satisfying as a game can be. So much so, that I'm already sad about walking away after we're finished the campaign. There's little single-player replayability, but I do have faith good community maps will keep it alive. Sooner or later though I'll tire of the game world and the items in it, and will want more. It's a sweet engine, great to see a hardcore mil game like this in the mainstream market, and I'll be watching the community addons closely.


Bennett’s Score: 7/10
Ben's score 7/10