This is friggen awesome. I'd hoped the title was going to be "I've just seen a face". +1 anyways.
Date: 07 Aug 2016 17:14
Number of posts: 19
RSS: New posts
Some of the description of this SCP is confusing to me, but I am undecided as to if this is a bad thing yet or not. Part of it being confusing may add to the general creepiness and the "WTF Factor" I think I would like to see a change perhaps just on the part that says subjects are "unable to be identified as human" I am not even sure that is exactly how it was worded, but i remember thinking that the wording didn't quite make clear what the exact aspect of the effect was doing. By reading further I realize that it means that there is something just not right about the individuals, but there was just something in that one part I thought could be worded a bit, i don't know, smoother perhaps is the word I am looking for? It just seemed like there was a bumpy part there in an otherwise very well written piece. I really enjoyed this one though and definitely has my vote overall. Thank you for your work, like i said I rather enjoyed this one.
I will say that this article did trim extremely close to cliche for most of the article. It did have a nagging 'something isn't right' feeling here though…
The part at the end where it made everybody follow Site Director Blank implies something much more sinister going on. That, and the fact that it keeps moving if they try to evacuate the area implies it knows what's going on and is toying with the Foundation. I love it when SCPs fuck with the Foundation like that.
That was the part that turned my downvote into an upvote. Well done.
I remember reading this when it was in the draft stages on the forums.
Like I said then, I dig the concept well enough, and like the idea of changing conditions for the treatment of 2551-1 instances with each Site Director.
I still feel like you are going way overboard with the blackboxing in the timeline (seriously, what good is a timeline without dates) but thats mainly a nitpick.