Made a correction. "Seemingly", not "seemly". As I've said before, just a spell-checker is not enough.
Date: 30 Apr 2010 23:41
Number of posts: 25
RSS: New posts
I so want to like this SCP. The buildup was phenominal. Mysterious photo album showing the time leading up to a seemingly motiveless murder-suicide, last two pages missing… I was like, YES, PLEASE, THIS SOUNDS TERRIFYING. But then…
It segues into the chronicles of an invisible dude who makes you go crazy. SO DISSAPOINTING.
It's like… the honeymoon was fantastic. This SCP, in the beginning, had exactly what I was looking for, and that first night was amazing. But a few paragraphs later, dawn broke, and I rolled over and realized that she's not as amazing as I'd drunkenly thought, and that maybe getting married in vegas to a girl I'd just met was a bad idea, and as my head pounded with hangover I raided the mini bar while wondering just how legally binding that marriage contract was, because she's not actually all that attractive and smells funny and snores really loudly and ew, is that a moustache? Oh… Oh God… that's a… but she… On the other hand, that means this wasn't a legal marriage and I'm free to slip out the back way and downvote this article for promising so much and delivering so little.
I've gotta go with yoric on this one - it starts out well, with a solid core concept, then turns into another "Thing what makes you go crazy for no good reason." I'd get rid of that aspect, or maybe replace it with the possibility of this mystery person showing up in other photos, particularly in collections where his/her/its ubiquitous presence could lead a reader to draw erroneous conclusions, as with the original couple.
I had the same reaction. The effect of the thing seems too much of the typical. I like Leicontis' idea about having the figure show up in other photos. Maybe the containment should be around keeping this figure from infecting other people's memories (by which I mean appearing in other photos and not implanting false memories and makeumcrazies)
so many words, so little actual criticism.
No one but you seems to have trouble following the criticism there, ghost, including the author himself, whom I've talked to in chat. But here, let me make things easier for you.
I so want to like this SCP. The buildup was phenominal.
It segues into the chronicles of an invisible dude who makes you go crazy.
This SCP, in the beginning, had exactly what I was looking for
But a few paragraphs later, dawn broke, and I
downvote this article for promising so much and delivering so little.
Perhaps that little paragraph is easier for you to grasp, ghost? It's all copy pasted in order from the body of my post. If that still seems to you to be very little criticism, chalk it up to a fairly well written SCP with just a few unfortunately major problems, but I honestly don't think you'd have had a problem if it were anyone but me posting in the first place (I shouldn't say that, should I?).
I like the idea. I like that it's a photo album of a very happy couple with a heart on it. One would think that it would strengthen people's love for one another, but it does the opposite. It's delicious irony. But I'm not so sure about the guy. Who is he? Why is he there? Is he the actual SCP or just a component? What does he want? Is he secretly having an affair with the partner? It would be great if you could expand upon that, or simply remove him. Overall, I like it, but it needs some fixing up.
There, I did a fairly major rewrite of the effect, howsit work now?
I enjoyed the article, but I can't get past wondering who "danny" is or, more importantly, why the information was included. It's never commented on again, and it seems like information that the Foundation really would look into. I get the feeling that the implication is "danny" is the unidentified male in the photos, which might not be intended. Either way, though, surely the information's relevance could be made clearer with a line like "To date, research has given no indication as to the identity of 'danny'," or whatever feels appropriate. I just find it odd such a distinguishing feature was given no more consideration after it was noted as existing.
Also, it's entirely inconsequential and most people won't think anything of it if they even notice, but I'm slightly vexed by the "engaged" couple seeming to have the same blacked-out last name. It's the same length, at least, and given the fact that the Foundation doesn't use Courier or a similar monospaced typeface, it implies they're the same name. This really changes nothing- I can't see much difference between it being a married couple and an engaged couple- but it'd be nice if they didn't match exactly if we're going with "engaged."
I'm not so sure about the euclid status. There's quite a few safe SCPs that seem significantly more fucked up. Would this not pass the locked box test?
Agreed. Even as a severe cognitohazard with lingering effects, it is predictable and not hard to contain. Safe.
I really like this SCP, the concept of mental torture that continues even after the exposure is pretty cool, the delivery is pretty alright.
I will give this +1 if it is lowered to a safe object.