SOCOM is not a game that I found to be without its problems, but more or less everything Conflict does, SOCOM does a fair bit better, and the matter of online multiplayer gameplay widens the gap all that much more. This isn't a bad game, but it's hard to recommend as a purchase given the timing. While Conflict has its setting and some unique presentation elements going for it, even its confinement to a single theater could be just as easily viewed as a hindrance.
Gameplay
This is a team-based military shooter, with most of its missions sending a fireteam of four around to shoot things, blow things up, create mayhem, and otherwise do all that stuff that is great fun when nothing more than pixels actually dies. It is realistic in intent, if not necessarily always in execution. There are some funny inconsistencies along those lines -- for example, it reckons ammunition in clips rather than rounds, which I very much like (since you lose the rounds in the stub end of a near-empty clip you throw away), but it also features almost supernaturally efficacious medical kits, capable of erasing near-fatal gunshot wounds in a matter of seconds. For the most part, it sticks to the Red Storm mold, however, and death can come very quickly to the careless.
Both third- and first-person perspectives are available at any time, with the former offering a well-behaved auto-aim function and the later providing more exact control over the crosshairs. The aiming controls in either perspective are precise enough, although the limitations imposed by terrain and different character stances don't seem quite consistent. When crouched or prone in certain positions, the game seems to flip-flop on the question of whether or not you're allowed to move your arms and weapon in a particular direction, resulting in confused fumbling with the movement controls trying to find a more suitable position.
The level design makes one bad mistake right off, giving players a solo mission to begin with. The idea, I suppose, was to gradually introduce the team control mechanics -- halfway through, you get a sidekick, thus teaching you how to command teammates slowly -- but that's a poor decision for a couple of reasons. The dynamics of commanding one character as opposed to four are entirely different, so the player is immediately picking up habits and tendencies that run contrary to how the game is supposed to be played later on. It's also simply deuced hard to complete the mission alone, and never mind that the SAS would never send a single man on a hostage rescue mission against dozens of foes and hardened targets in broad daylight...
After that, of course, the style settles down a bit and the mission designs become more intelligent. At that point, however, other difficulties with the interface reveal themselves. The team command and control mechanics are not a big problem, since your squadmates are not entirely AI-driven -- it's possible to swap between team members with the D-pad and directly control the team in the way that SOCOM doesn't allow. Inventory control is another matter, though. In every control configuration, you must hold down a button to bring up the menu and toggle through a fairly long list of equipment with the analog stick to find what you want. When you need a medkit now, or a LAW rocket to take down the tank that's drawing uncomfortably close, it's more than a little annoying to have to flip through the knife and the binoculars and the silly night-vision goggles you brought along, never mind that it isn't nighttime. There's only one active inventory slot, no quick commands for swapping through equipment with a single button press, and no separation between weapons and ancillary equipment. Changing all of those features would have made for a more convenient and streamlined inventory system.
The more expansive, open spaces in Conflict mean that most shortcomings with its AI behavior aren't necessarily thrown into sharp relief. If the enemy soldiers aren't forced to do anything particularly smart, it doesn't really matter how smart they are. It's clear, though, that some of them could use a wake-up call. A fellow guarding a tent, for example, should not be staring at a canyon wall after I just wasted three of his associates fifteen meters behind him. Last I checked, the sound of a .223 round carried that far.
Other situations show the level scripting overriding common sense, as when a group of soldiers run across a bridge to attack a sniper. They will only hit the deck and open fire at a certain point, so even if it's obvious that they are pinned down by the sniper's fire before that, they will not take the shot they have, instead doggedly trying to reach the spot where the scripting says they're supposed to start shooting. The most common problem, however, is an unrealistic level of aggression. Real soldiers do not run out from behind cover to charge a small group when they possess numerical superiority and hardened defenses, but the bad guys in Conflict certainly do.
Depending on your perspective, you could argue that makes for a more fun game. A stand-up shootout is more entertaining and over quicker than a protracted episode of plinking at silhouettes in windows. As always, though, one is bothered by the feeling that success has come on account of the foolishness of one's opponents, rather than one's own skill. Come to think of it, I wonder if that's how the coalition brass felt after the real Gulf War...
Conflict's multiplayer game has one big advantage over SOCOM, and that's the availability of a co-op campaign mode. This naturally does a lot to improve the quality of the missions -- the fun of playing with a friend to back you up does a lot to cover for other flaws (once you get past the solo mission, anyway). As far as the competitive game goes, though, two-player split-screen doesn't compare so well to full-blown eight-player online team competition.
Graphics
This is a very brown sort of game, but in this case we can blame the Middle East rather than the game's developers. It's an inevitable trade-off for the realistic setting. Conflict also does its best to provide more varied environments, including urban missions set in Kuwait and Iraq. Wherever the action takes place, the levels look decent, if a bit sparsely populated, and draw distance is never a problem, which is impressive considering how big some of the outdoor areas are. The level of texture detail isn't often impressive, but again, there's only so much you can expect from a desert.
The character modeling and animation here is unremarkable, and there seem to be fewer frames than there ought -- the animation looks a bit skippy in the soldiers' loping run even when the framerate is running at its usual consistent 30. More important, though, the death animations here fail to measure up to the extremely high standard set by SOCOM. At times, they're understated, while others seem entirely out of proportion to the lethal impact -- Hollywood-style descents from guard towers and the like. The dichotomy between realism and the lack thereof is, again, evident.
Sound
The niftiest effect in this regard has to do with the game's divided presentation. When you begin a campaign, you get to pick your special force of choice -- the American Delta Force or the British Special Air Service. This doesn't make any practical difference as far as gameplay is concerned, since the missions are the same either way, but if you pick the SAS, all of the cinemas and mission briefings are delivered with a cool British accent.
Beyond that, though, the sound design isn't so remarkable, which is particularly unfortunate considering how well (guess who) SOCOM does in that regard. Since firefights in Conflict take place at fairly long range, it would be great if there were better directional sound, so you could tell where all that gunfire was coming from. As it is, though, you generally just have to squint to try and find who's shooting, which is difficult when the screen is flashing red to tell you you're being shot.