'Art By Oswaldo' (LB7RE/C9Y9A/ND5E3) / Discussion

This is the discussion related to the wiki page 'Art By Oswaldo' (LB7RE/C9Y9A/ND5E3).

Co-Author Post

Boogey_Man23 30 Jun 2019 22:46

This is a CollabCon entry from the latest-formed team to still beat the submission deadline!

I had a great time working with my co-author PatersonFerreted on this project, and I'm very happy that we were able to produce this story for the contest.

Hopefully people enjoy it. Thanks for reading!

Last edited on 02 Jul 2019 02:14 by Boogey_Man23 Show more

Genshed 01 Jul 2019 18:11

When you shake hands with Mickey D's, count your fingers afterwards.

devonmartin 02 Jul 2019 00:30

I like it. +1

Site Criticism Team - Review

RockTeethMothEyes 03 Jul 2019 20:44

Picking this up, as it hasn't gotten a whole lot of attention and there is a contest going on.

---

+[Critique] Click to Access

Just a note, I would have greatly appreciated External Report 13 being made into a proper list rather than a solid block of text, or at least turning each set of requests into their own pargraphs. It's painful to read as it is now.

---

So, to quickly address a nitpick, I don't think anartists would request specifically for Scranton Reality Anchors, because how would they know about Scranton Reality Anchors? I'm of the opinion that the Foundation keeps a lot of their secrets behind highly classified walls, and one of those things is their technology. It feels like a detriment to me.

Overall, this feels incredibly lacking. There are the pieces to a build up (like the proxy buyer and the slight bit of tension introduced after the request report), but it's either not capitalized on or it's resolved far too easily. Why should MC&D listen to these anartists? They're the ones holding the cards here. They hold the money in their right hand and the exposure in the other. Oswaldo relies on them to get their art sold and known by the masses. Surely, MC&D can afford to drop some artists if they are asking for too much.

In any case, I didn't find the ending to be satisfactory, which led to me downvoting the piece. I feel like more could have been explored here, but it ultimately just serves as a backdrop to the other article, which I hadn't read prior to this review.

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this review do not reflect the opinions of SCP Wiki staff as a whole. Please respond to RockTeethMothEyes or contact the captain of the Site Criticism Team, SoullessSingularity, for any questions or concerns relating to this review.

Re: Site Criticism Team - Review

Boogey_Man23 04 Jul 2019 04:26

Hey thanks for reading and offering this feedback!

The endings for both articles were a bit rushed to make contest deadline, so I can see why you might feel they don't really deliver a satisfying conclusion. While I think the accompanying tale isn't so much worse off for having an ambiguous/implied ending, this article does mainly serve as a setup for the other so I'll have to think about how it can be given an ending in its own right. The points you bring up will be helpful for that. Definitely the smaller issues you mentioned will be addressed after the contest is over and content edits are permitted.

Again, thank you for reading and for your comment.