RPC-060 / Discussion

This is the discussion related to the wiki page RPC-060.

Mr Helios 17 Jul 2018 18:10

the inscription rust over, and revise itself to

I think you're missing a couple of s' here. Overall, interesting article.

H F Dummie 24 Sep 2018 02:17

Nearly flawless clinical tone.

However, Addendums are always at least 3 numbers. So, instead of 60, it should be 060.

Also, it's a good idea to add some lines between Addendums. Like this:

---

BLAH BLAH BLAH

Solid 4 here.

pogchamp 03 Jun 2019 23:52

Clinical tone is nice, but, this could have done so much more than just a transmutation aid. Will go for a 3, could have been much more. :feels:

EpicGamer42069 19 Apr 2022 16:50

I'm giving it a 5 because this page got attacked by bots.

Putting the "ring" in boring

DoubleDenial 20 Sep 2024 22:19

It's been a while since I've read an article that actually irritated me, but here it is.

+ review

This takes an instantly-compelling base object with strong emotional and historical connotations and makes it a chore to read about.

The article contradicts itself as if it were written straight ahead in one sitting; it's an Alpha anomaly, except it can kill anyone anywhere at any time and requires semiannual human sacrifices. Meanwhile, the effects are meaningless and have nothing to do with each other.

The owner of RPC-060 henceforth referred to as RPC-060-A-1, will be completely oblivious to this process and will insist to keep RPC-060 on their finger at all times.

This incredibly contrived mind control has to be included, or the anomaly won't be overpowered "scary" enough. If you're wondering why somebody else can't just remove it, the answer comes 3 paragraphs later… I think? But this raises the question, if an RPC-060-A-2 event can trigger when the ring is incomplete and not attached to the subject, why should the transmutation process even happen?

I'd go with the answers that it transforms because it's cool, and that if you could take it off, it wouldn't be a thing-that-kills-you. This is the kind of writing that punishes you for thinking about it.

Back on the topic of the quoted excerpt, the wearer is promptly referred to as RPC-060-A for the remainder of the article, while RPC-060-A-1 refers to something different. That means that this sentence also confidently states something blatantly false, which is why I presume nobody proofread it.

The following is an observation of the different outcomes of the RPC-060-A-1 process when given different objects.

I do not care about any of this because it is a meaningless waste of time. The article would be no different if the subjects simply dropped dead besides shedding some illusory substance. Sure, a guy getting turned into a PC is kinda cool, and maybe I'd like to read an article about it, but this article isn't about it. I don't know what this article is about, though. It may just be about nothing:

Following [DATA EXPUNGED], the Impact Assessment Committee has issued a restriction on any further attempts to create RPC-060-B instances using eligible RPC objects.

Something that the author didn't write isn't going to happen: a literal nothing event, and this is the ending!

Putting thought into this review feels almost like a waste of time, because I didn't feel like much thought was put into writing this article to begin with. Given the hints of decent presentation and delivery, that's a shame. 1/5