Forums > Submission Feedback > Darkwingstalker's Alone in the Dark review

I'm surprised this review wasn't rejected.

It's very bad. Sometimes the author capitalizes 'I', other times he doesn't. One sentence was missing a capitalization for its first word; in another example I saw the word 'graphics' randomly capitalized.

There are also a lot of awkwardly written sentences. The last sentence is a giant run-on stitched together with commas. To make matters worse, it's an entirely pointless inclusion since it doesn't say anything relevant about the game.

I thought the whole review was rather bad. Not nearly enough insight was included. The analysis of Alone in the Dark's material was back-of-the-box-like at best. At worst, it was entirely irrelevant. And as a whole, it was very poorly written.

I don't want anyone, especially the author, to think I'm being mean here. I'm just calling it like it is. This review needs a lot more work before it can become credible or even readable.

I don't have to boost my review resume because I have a real resume.

I question the decision making skills of anyone who would approve this! Talking like I don't already know who it is just adds to the drama.

You exist because we allow it. And you will end because we demand it.

Suskie's being spitefull because it was me!

Let's all take a second to attack my decision making. It'll be the highlight of everyone's day, I wager.

The plan for this was to accept it long enough to put a feedback topic up, then take it back off site. However, when you do these things at work, other things seem to pop up and get in the way. I don't want to be the kind of person who just nukes a review without at least trying to tell the person involved why.

But Felix summed it up pretty well. There's a lot that needs to be done to this review; keep in mind that we all started somewhere. But, here, there was a huge probelm with content -- there wasn;t really any. You need to show not tell when you talk about what works and doesn;t work to convince your reader. They're not going to just take your word for it when you say "This is good". Show them why it's good.

There was also numerous errors littered throughout, mostly through grammer.

I would suggest revising the review heavilly and seeing if you can strengthen it before you submit it again.

For us. For them. For you.

It's grammar, not grammer.

Your girlfriend's name ends in .jpg

I spell how I like. And cover up all errors with fraudulent claims of UK spelling differentials.

For us. For them. For you.

This review, and its timing... reminded me of the days of GameFaqs... it was all about getting the review up for a new game FAST. Quality wasn't really a consideration. We should all be spending our energies talking up that sweet Space Invaders Extreme review, instead. ^_^

I don't have to prove I'm refined - that's what makes me refined!

Ah, Alone in the Dark. I made the incredible mistake of purchasing the Wii version, which has even worse controls and loses the game's saving grace: it's graphics and atmosphere.

The Wii graphics actually had glitches. It was depressing enough to make me decide to sell my Wii. Graphics don't make a game for me, but graphical glitches? People just aren't taking their time with Wii games.

Anyways, I returned it and now have $50 to spend on any game I choose. To be honest, I'd like to someday play the PS3 version of Alone in the Dark, and I am eager to rent it and bust out an awesome review of what promises to be a mediocre game... but we'll see.

Note to gamers: when someone shoots you in the face, they aren't "gay." They are "psychopathic."