RPC-497 / Discussion

This is the discussion related to the wiki page RPC-497.

Critique time

Pepsi-Tea Man 07 Jul 2018 21:31

All RPC-497-3 instances are to be cremated to terminate them.

worded a bit strangely. I'd say:

All RPC-497-3 instances are to be terminated by means of cremation.

---

Each instance of RPC-497-1 has a gland located within each paw that allows their claws to secrete RPC-497-2.

also worded strangely. I'd say:

Each instance of RPC-497-1 has a gland located within each paw which allows secretion RPC-497-2.

---

and has a 100% infectivity rate and 100% 99% lethality rate

that seems a bit too specific. Did the Authority test thousands of people and find exactly 99% died?

---

P good RPC.

Re: Critique time

Nuclear Thumb 07 Jul 2018 21:40

I'll try to word some of the sentences better, thanks. As for the testing, I was going for them to test 100 people and 99 of them died with only 1 instance surviving (497-3A)

Carnacki 11 Jul 2018 16:53

I think the biggest problem with this article is the phrase "minor healing factor", really brought me out of it. I know what you're trying to say, but it really needs to be reworded or expanded on. I mean, I think that it would be accurate to say that humans also have a "minor healing factor". If you wanted to keep it brief and not dive into this, which seems like a bit of a big deal, I would rework it to something like "a yet unknown method of quickly regenerating tissue" or something like that. Or, you could add a couple of sentences to describe this quality further.

Nuclear Thumb 11 Jul 2018 20:48

Fixed it, hope its better

Carnacki 12 Jul 2018 15:09

Sounds much better.

(account deleted) 04 Mar 2019 14:00

Very clunkily written. The concept boils down to a fairly generic "magic disease" type. There's nothing here innovative or clever, and the article fails to even execute the tired idea in a novel way.

google_chrome 11 Mar 2019 21:36

This article is a mediocre concept that is executed in a sub par way. There is no story, and the concept isn't good enough to warrant this. But the article exists without being broken so it could be notably worse.

2 stars