PC World is a magazine I have a lot of respect for. They do a lot of great work in the field of reviewing computer products. But I noticed something when I looked at the bottom of the chart. Trend Micro got the lowest score on the list and their “Bottom Line” review reads as follows:

“Trend Micro’s latest suite fails at the most basic task of detecting and blocking malicious software. Not recommended.”

Ouch, seems pretty scathing to me. But then look at the score. It’s a 74/100. On a regular grading scale that would be a middle “C”. On a 1-10 system it would be a 7.5, well above an “average” of 5.

How the Hell do you say something “fails at the most basic task” and then give it an average or even good score? That makes no sense. The full review isn’t much more kind saying that:

“Trend Micro’s suite has some good points, but there’s no getting around the fact that Internet Security Pro 2009 fails at detecting malicious software, and therefore fails as a security program. We cannot recommend buying it.”

Clearly something is wrong with review scores when a 74 is a total failure of a program. It’s time we woke up a little bit and realized that review scores on the Web are garbage and reliance on them is dangerous, especially when dealing with security software.

However, this isn’t a new problem, it’s been going on for quite some time.

A Bit of History

I’m not the first to have noticed this strange problem. About two years ago, Destructoid made a similar observation as it relates to video games and lamented how many assume anything under a “5″ might as well be a “1″.

Our brains have been trained to assume that a review of a five is a slam, an insult. Even though, mathematically, it should be the most average, non-offensive of the reviews possible. If I give a game/application/movie/product/etc a review of a 5/10, what I should be saying is that it is mediocre, middle of the pack but what I am really saying, at least in most people’s minds, is that it stinks, it’s lousy.

This is part of the reason why RottenTomatoes, according to Destructoid, had to raise their “fresh” rating threshold on video games from 60% to 70%, because too many bad games were getting highly reviewed.

It’s obvious that online reviews are skewed toward the positive, the likely exception being Web hosting (have you SEEN those reviews?), but the real question is why?

Some Theories

As a person who regularly does reviews, I lament and loathe having to give a numerical score. First, nothing is more frustrating than having to condense a 1000 word review into a single digit. Second, I find myself giving average scores with a very high level of frequency. For example, on Kongregate, I find myself giving a review of 3/5 about half of the time with 2s and 4s making up most of the rest (a slight lean to 4 though as I do tend to play games that are already highly reviewed).

So, rather than play the “scoring” game, I usually skip such simplified reviewing. However, the few times I have done so I have noticed a few things.

1. It is Easy to Find Something You Like: Very few things are so bad that you can’t find at least one thing that you like. As humans, when thinking back on something (and all reviews really are reflections) it’s easier to think about the good than the bad. As such, even when we didn’t like something, we don’t want to discredit the good that it did bring.
2. Positive Reviews Get More Attention: If you want to get a lot of links and traffic to your post, you do much better with positive reviews. Sure, snarky over-the-top negative reviews get a lot of attention as well, but positive reviews that make people want to try the product rated generate the most attention overall. Mediocre reviews, no matter how honest, get looked over.
3. We Self-Adjust: Subconsciously, we all know that online reviews are skewed so we tend to skew our own to match. Whether it is an attempt to make sure we are not misunderstood or just mimicking what we see elsewhere, we do it. It’s that simple and it creates the cycle of destruction that we see.

However, why we are where we are is not important. What is more of an urgent matter is what do we do about it? After all, if we can’t stop the spiraling upward reviews, soon we’ll have nowhere higher to go up.

Fixing the Problem

When it comes to dealing with this issue, there are three solutions that I see.:

1. Forgo Any Kind of Rating: This one is simple, you write or produce your review, say what’s good and what’s bad and then leave it there. It’s a system adopted by Yahtzee of Zero Punctuation fame and works well for many products. The only people that are hurt are those that skim reviews looking for the final verdict. But there’s nothing stopping you from creating a short “Conclusions” section, like I seem to do on every stupid thing I write…
2. Use Non-Numeric Ratings: The whole numeric rating system doesn’t make a great deal of sense anyway. What am I supposed to do with this information? If a product has below a five should I forget it? Five to seven get it on sale? Seven to nine buy it? Nine to ten step over my own mother to get it? Why not do like Screwattacks VGR series and make a real suggestion, they condense every review to “F’ It”, “Rent it” or “Buy It”. That’s useful information. Sure, with no standard system you can’t take an average, but the averages we have today are broken so that’s no real loss.
3. Reset the Scale: Do a manual reboot of the system and check and make sure that reviews are centered on the actual middle of the range that is chosen. It’s not easy and it will make comparisons with old reviews impossible, but it’s necessary from time to time to beat the scores back down before they make like Spinal Tap and take it to 11.

Which of these will work? Probably none. No one seems really convinced that this is a problem worth talking about, but if we continue this current pace, in a few years, anything below an eight will be deemed “bad”. At that point, all credibility will have gone out the window…

Conclusions

The bottom line is this, review scores are hopelessly inflated for most products on the Web and have reached a point where they are meaningless. If you want to know if a product rocks or sucks, the best thing you can do is actually read the review. Most people will tell you even if their scores don’t.

Sure, reading something can be hard when you have a pretty, shiny, simple score to look at, but it really is necessary. Even if the scale is fair, there’s no way to condense a complicated opinion to just a single numerical value.

Trust me, I’ve tried.

The reviewer took the time to write out his or her thoughts and experiences, the least we can do is take the few minutes required to read it.

It at least beats blindly complaining about how wrong the score was.

Between the controversies that have kept the game in the limelight, solid reviews and new thirty dollar price tag, I was curious enough to pick it up at a holiday sale.

But is it a good game? Where most of the popular Wii games have stayed at the $50 level, this one has gone on sale a bit early, fortunately not as quickly as the crap ones though. But is it because Bully is an underselling gem or is there an issue keeping people away?

Premise

Made by Rockstar Games, the makers of the modern Grand Theft Auto series, Bully has a lot in common with its much loved and despised cousin. It, like GTA, is a sandbox game but Bully takes place in a school/town setting rather than the mean streets of some imaginary city.

In fact, all of Bully can be described as a teen-friendly GTA. Instead of being a gang banger, you’re a rough and tumble high school student. Instead of shooting strangers with your uzi, you’re pelting them with a slingshot. Instead sleeping with hookers in a parked car, you’re kissing girls on the front lawn. It’s the same ideas, just toned down for a slightly younger crowd.

That being said, Bully shares much of the bright spots and flaws of the GTA series. It is a very open game, but that openness is tempered by how far you want to get in the game. When you first drop in, you’ll want to get into fights, break windows and vandalize cars, but it is impossible to complete missions, get girls and generally progress when you’re doing that. Instead, you have to go to class, wear your helmet (when on a moped) and generally obey the law lest you spend every waking second running from the fuzz.

Fortunately, the missions give you enough opportunities to safely be the asshole you always dreamed of being. That is, if you have the skills.

Graphics & Sound

For a Wii game, Bully looks pretty good. The graphics won’t compete with GTA IV, but they easily compete with and beat any of the GTA III series. The characters look a little blocky and but the environments are, for the most part, very lush and pretty. There is a lot of space to explore (especially when you reach the later chapters and can go off-campus) and the attention to detail throughout is solid.

The sound, like the graphics, are solid but not magical. The music is a bit stale and grows old fast, but the effects are great and the voice acting, for a video game, is actually pretty good. Though the acting is overdone in places, it actually fits the spirit of the game, which is meant to be a self-aware over-the-top parody.

Could the sound and graphics use some improvement? Certainly. But I don’t think anyone is going to say that they “suck” or that they take away from the experience. Overall, the audio and visuals are solid and do their job well.

Controls

The Wii controls in Bully are a mixed bag. Basic movement is simple and fluid. The analog stick feels responsive and you’re able to control most of your character’s actions with great ease.

Also, the fighting controls work really well too. The use of the Wiimote and Nunchuck to throw punches is a simple, but satisfying touch. Bully manages to do boxing better than Wii Sports or most of the other boxing games on the console. There is something insanely satisfying about beating up a foe with your bare hands and Bully manages to work in both leg and hand attacks that make you feel like you’re actually fighting. The only issue is that some of the more powerful moves learned later in the game are hard to pull off reliably as timing and Wiimote sensitivity seem to thwart many attempts.

However, there are several issues that I have with the controls as I’ve moved through the game:

1. Z and C: I dislike the location of the Z and C buttons on the Nunchuck in general, but this game compounds the problem. C talks to people, Z grabs them. If I want to talk to someone to be their friend, some of the time I end up grabbing them and starting a fight. It is a very easy mistake that is only mitigated by short NPC memories.
2. D-Pad Blues: When you’re using the Wiimote and Nunchuck in the traditional style, reaching the down button the Wiimote D-pad is awkward at best and, reaching the up arrow is almost impossible without changing your grip. Though up is rarely used, the down is used for jumps and other environment interactions. Hard to get the hang of.
3. Tap A For Everything: Finally, this game seems to enjoy making you tap the A button for everything. Want to run? Tap A repeatedly. Want to ride a bike? Tap A. What about a skateboard? Tap A. This repeated tapping of A to get anywhere with any speed is frustrating and tiresome. It doesn’t add anything to the game itself and seems to just wear me and my Wiimote out.

Other than these and a few other annoyances (targeting could use some work too), the game is pretty solid in the control department. It’ll take you a bit out of the element, but not so much that you fling the controller across the room.

Gameplay

The gameplay of Bully should be familiar to anyone who has even looked at a Grand Theft Auto game in the past ten years. You see a star on map, go to star, get a cutscene with a mission, complete mission, go to next star. It might be a little more complicated than that but not by much. Most of the complications, as with GTA, are self-imposed minigames that you can either skip or spend three weeks playing exclusively, the choice is yours.

Of the GTAs, Bully, for me, is most like Vice City, which is great for me because that was my favorite (not having had the chance to play IV yet). Where Vice City was more a funny self-parodying game, San Andreas started the turn to more realism and forced you to babysit your character with feedings, trips to the gym and social interactions. GTA IV, by all accounts, just took that same rubbish and ramped it up, putting even more between you and the senseless violence you bought the game for.

Bully, like Vice City, might not be the technical achievement of the later GTAs, but it does manage less BS and more fun. The missions are varied, making them actually interesting, and the game never gets self absorbed. Sure, you have to go to class, but even those are at least somewhat interesting and they do provide you with good rewards. Plus, after the first chapter, you can pretty much just leave campus and forget all about school, at least until you have a mission there.

Though the plot is not the most interesting in the world, it holds you just fine and since you don’t have to babysit your character, other than getting him to bed every night, there isn’t much between you and what you want to do, other than the police and prefects.

However, the entire time you play the game, you can’t help but feel that something is missing. A GTA game without the blood and sex feels kind of wrong. The worst you can do to anyone is knock them out. This isn’t to say that it makes the game less fun, just that you spend your time wondering why you aren’t playing GTA.

The experience does feel watered down but, at the same time, the controls, especially the fighting, and the missions keep you interested in the game, even if you miss using your assault rifle to take care of problems. The one thing that does throw the game off is the difficulty, which seems to fluctuate between nearly impossible and brain-dead without much warning. Much of the difficulty problems could be mitigated by clearer mission descriptions and a better mapping system, but those are also issues GTA has had to put up with.

All in all, the gameplay is familiar but not stale. The new characters, environment, rules and style keep what should be a tired system fresh. The missions are varied and manage to keep the game fun for the most part, though a few of them really frustrate and/or bore you. Over all though, the gameplay problems are just speedbumps.

Conclusions

Your opinion of Bully will depend entirely on your opinion of GTA, especially Vice City. If you prefer the more gritty and realistic GTAs, then Bully will likely disappoint, but if you liked the senseless fun and cheese of Vice City, you’re in good shape.

Likewise, if you really like the GTA series and can’t wait for the next piece of downloadable content or big release, Bully might be a good tide-over. Though it isn’t as intense as its cousins, it does do a good job with the gameplay and the sandbox structure.

Beyond that though, it is hard for me to picture a target audience for this game. Though it is clearly intended to bring the GTA experience to a younger crowd, as we all know, through decades of bad parenting, this crowd already has the GTAs and has beaten every mission a million times. Bully won’t quench their bloodlust and may actually hit too close to home for them to enjoy it (Who wants to pretend to be in school when they have to go every day?)

Bully is for people who enjoy the sandbox style of gaming but don’t need the blood and sex to enjoy their game and are willing to look past a few minor problems in order to beat the crap out of a few punks.

In reality, the game was probably designed for people like me, semi-casual gamers that don’t want to mess with the details but would love the chance to go back to high school and beat up all the people that tormented them while protecting their nerdy friends.

In that regard, Bully plays more like a PG-13 revenge fantasy than a GTA. But it works rather well for that…