May it never bump into SCP-169.
Date: 04 Feb 2009 06:45
Number of posts: 28
RSS: New posts
I'm really not fond of this one.
Why is that, Ducks? Anything in particular?
I actually like it. I can see the mythological vibe, but it's not really the Midgard Serpent since it's not world girdling, or am I confusing my myths? Mmmm… no, Jörmungandr encircles Midgard, and holds his own tail in his mouth. When he lets go, things are going wahoon shaped.
Someone trying to insert a bit of norse mythology into the site? I like the writing, but it's not enough to get an upvote from me. I can see a lot of folks downvoting this due to a knee jerk reaction to it being so obviously a reference to the Midgard Serpent. I don't have that reaction, we have plenty of other more blatantly religious SCPs that get plenty of acceptance, so it's actually kind of nice to see other mythologies included.
Never really been a fan of giant monsters but I like the writing here. +1
I agree with mrunimport. This is extremely similar to scp 169. The unkown size, current hibernatory state and the fact that leviathan (169) and jormungandr (722) are huge serpentine monstrosities points to an accidental copy scp. Regarding 722 itself i feel as though it focuses too heavily on the poison and less on the sheer size of the beast. I find that The poison itself is overpowered to the point of breaking my natural suspension of disbelief. It has no cure, cannot be avoided and produces random effects to kill someone. If the poison was an scp in and of itself it would be more impressive. Also if it is so unstable outside of 722 that it cannot be recovered for study it would also degrade too quickly to effectively poison someone. I am sorry to say that there are too many issues at this point for me to upvote this scp.
The location listed for this is Site-103. There is a Bio Site-103 already listed in the Secure Facilities Locations section surrounding SCP-757, and as the Site-103 for SCP-722 appears to be a glacier, it's unlikely that they are one in the same. I would recommend changing the Site number. As it appears to be a recent discovery (reference to Greenpeace) I'd say a higher number. My own list is incomplete, but has more than the Secure Facilities Locations section, and it looks like Sites 94-102, then 105-287 are unused.