RPC-713 / Discussion

This is the discussion related to the wiki page RPC-713.

meta

Servant-002 03 Feb 2019 08:51

dude, this is pretty meta. i like it.

ShaneUAV 03 Feb 2019 19:01

The idea behind this anomaly is good, i am a fan of the concept you have here. But your execution falls a bit flat with some tonal issues on the description that should be ironed out. Great addendum though.

H F Dummie 10 Feb 2019 04:40

I like the idea, but the description leaves much to be desired. It took multiple rereads to understand what's going on.

Fix the description and I'm sure I can offer a 4 or even 5.

Von Pincier 28 Feb 2019 01:57

I can dig this, honestly. But I'd move the Wikipedia links into footnotes or something, it's a little jarring.

Peanutmanington 18 Mar 2019 01:10

No hazards, read through half the article and you don't seem to understand what tykokinetic means and this article is basically a -j but with more scientific words.

JimmyBoyHaha 23 Mar 2019 07:29

Seconded.

---

blabbo

Prototype_Toaster 05 Sep 2020 10:48

crit thread is here http://www.rpc-wiki.net/forum/t-10128821/rpc-713-exposed

(account deleted) 01 Oct 2020 03:02

what else am i supposed to get out of this aside from the "oh look, we're acknowledging the sources of rpc images in-universe" this is just meta fluff that exists solely for the novelty. its not as bad as post-SCP-3999 copycats, but judging by this site's standards its far too weak and short to be anything more than the RPC equivalent of an internet tabloid titled "SHOCKING! You'll Never Guess Where These RPC Pictures Come From!"

1/5

---

~Baubi

DoubleDenial 03 Mar 2022 03:39

Not a very interesting concept to begin with, nor one that requires containment. Why some instances are deemed as "not requiring containment" while others aren't is entirely beyond me, especially when the article itself even notes that the anomaly can be useful in spreading skepticism of other anomalies.

The list in the description is entirely unimportant to the article, besides providing a cheap "[DATA EXPUNGED]" part. This is a huge pet peeve of mine, honestly; am I supposed to be stupid enough to think that there's anything actually interesting being covered up there? There's also a lot of shoddy writing overall, such as referring to anomalies as "RPC's".

Then the article goes meta. I have to agree with the post above on this part. It's lame and predictable, almost poor quality -J material. The ending is especially egregious.

If there's any redeeming quality to this article, I would say it's the implication of the ending. The idea of the anomaly having an unprecedented dramatic increase in scope and power in the last paragraph of the article before the Authority can even do anything about it is pretty cool, but it's not emphasized in the article itself.

Doesn't hold up, and probably wasn't even that good to begin with. 1/5