If doctors were as slow at operating as Nintendo are at releasing Trauma Center games, the streets would overflow with the broken and half-finished. The irony of it is, New Blood is all about efficiency: four hands going at it in co-op operations where previously two sutured alone.
For Trauma heads it's sublime: take a niche title and just add more niche (that is, another fan) to appreciate it. It's uber-niche. Don't be surprised to see addicts hanging around outside GameStation, waiting to hijack the skills of anyone with a copy in their bag. Without a wingman, New Blood just isn't the same.
The benefit is obvious: two pairs of hands equals twice the speed, right? Wrong. Maybe. Four hands can 'do' fast, but they can also do strategic: you take tumours, I'll take lacerations; you scratch my back, I'll skin graft yours. Or maybe you gang up and bully each wound, pustule and biological fiend into submission. Co-op raises all kinds of questions, and online leaderboards show you the evidence of everyone's research. It could only get better with online replays, but then you'd be in the realms of worshipping fake doctors and the whole reality/videogame boundary would get weird.
Lone players are still in for fun - with its organ transplants and bone jigsaws this feels more like its own beast than Second Opinion's DS remake - but the game sings in co-op. Or rather swears, as old Mr BlameFinger turns up to help each of you dodge the malpractice bullet. Gamers who call out New Blood as being unplayable without a partner are wrong - we've finished it both ways - but something is lost when playing alone.
Either way, New Blood continues the narrative silliness of the original with a fully voiced tale of STIGMA (the latest virus), not forgetting to pause along the way for the odd kidnapping, a spot of televised gameshow surgery and a nun getting crushed by a huge rafter. If you're not going to play it for the co-op, at least play it for her.
Martin Kitts
// Overview
Verdict
The best Trauma Center to date, with terrific co-op play. However, we recognise that the game is ultra niche - so we've dropped our original score a little.
"we recognize that the game is ultra niche - so we've dropped our original score a little"
That's an odd statement, surely if a game is worthy of a decent score it seems a fallacy to dock it points because it may be a little bit more left-field than most. In fact if a game is a decent experience base it's score on that rather than if it is populist. Is this why certain obsequious cookie cutter sequels are consistently awarded high marks despite bugger all innovation?
P.S I'm aware Trauma Center is a franchise but the above statement still stands
"we recognize that the game is ultra niche - so we've dropped our original score a little"
That's an odd statement, surely if a game is worthy of a decent score it seems a fallacy to dock it points because it may be a little bit more left-field than most. In fact if a game is a decent experience base it's score on that rather than if it is populist. Is this why certain obsequious cookie cutter sequels are consistently awarded high marks despite bugger all innovation?
P.S I'm aware Trauma Center is a franchise but the above statement still stands
I know what you mean. That's like reviewing a small, alternative indie record and not giving it as high score as a Boyzone record, because it appeals to fewer people - no wonder people think there are no decent games on the wii!
Sorry CVG, this review just doesn't cut it for me. I wont go into excessive detail about it because I'd be wasting my own time, but other people have mentioned one of the points I wanted to raise. If you believe the game should have a higher review score, then give it that - simple.
Nice to see everyone reading the summary and ignoring the review. It clearly explains that the game is a vastly superior two player experience, in which case its overwhelming 'niche-ness' is a troubling factor. Reviewing it originally we had a great time in two-player, but this time I couldn't find anyone willing/wanting to play it. This drastically alters the experience. Taking the drop in fun into account, a score readjustment seemed the right thing to do.
We'll always give a game the score it deserves. The passing of time between the US review and the UK re-review tells us to give it 84.
I appreciate the insight to the scoring Matthew, however I did read the review fully. The one thing I hate about forums are hastily constructed responses to quotes,reviews or media taken completely out of context. These are reactionary in nature and invariably cobottom in execution. My critique still stands however.
The review clearly identified the difficulty in getting someone to join a two player procedure as the reason for potential dropped marks.I feel such difficulty is really down to the individual players social group.
Anecdotally speaking I would love to buy Rock Band 2 or GH:WT, however most of my circle of friends for one reason or another wouldn't be interested in joining me. Does this make the game niche to me? You betchya. Due to this issue is a game less deserving of it's accolades I have to say no it isn't.
The review was frustrating for me as it in effect someone who is looking for a good two player experience may plump for FIFA or any equally prevalent franchise as they are considered to be a safe pair of hands, hence my vitriol about "cookie cutter" games lacking real innovation.
In conclusion I'm not saying it was a poorly conceived review but I feel by calling it niche creates something of a self fulfilling prophecy. People will be less inclined to buy the game for fear it's diminished by a stifling lack of two player action. I mean surely most Wii owners have a second controller and nunchuk, and(unlike me...sigh) these people can convince their friends to don some figurative scrubs for some surgery related shenanigans!!!
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
*prepare for a flaming*.
