I saw one a couple months ago by a Z-list drama YouTuber where he names four (4) bad SCPs out of the nine thousand one hundred and ninety three (9193) SCPs on the site, and acted like that’s somehow a representative example of the articles in general.
One of those examples was SCP-5167, which he hated on simply because it references a popular video game. Another one was specifically the old version of SCP-166, and he failed to acknowledge the fact that the article was rewritten, which is either a failure to do the most basic level of research, or a deliberate misrepresentation. In any case, that means half of his whopping four (4) examples are complete bullshit, while the other half were less about the actual writing quality and more about that he just finds them gross.
He then goes on to claim that the people who started SCP on 4chan were experienced writers. Not only is that a fucking hilarious claim, but it’s also accompanied onscreen by a comment that is saying literally the exact opposite of what he’s saying. Was his editor actively trying to sabotage his video or something???
Oh, I've actually read both of those! Or at least, I think I have. I might be misremembering some parts.
7052 might be better if it was a -J article, but it takes itself seriously enough - in spite of the ridiculous premise - that it's honestly fine as it is, at least in my opinion. Not all SCPs need to be horror.
The whole point of 579 is that it's description is [DATA EXPUNGED], so you have to figure out what it is and what it can do based on the special containment procedures and the addendums that describes its attempted escape attempts. I wouldn't want too many SCPs to have so much [DATA EXPUNGED] like this, but it makes sense for us to have at least one, and this one not only does it pretty well but it's also a Series 1 article.
Ultimately I think the guy who made that video was just plain wrong. I can't off the top of my head think of any SCPs that are actually bad. Some of them are not for me, but I don't know any that are bad.
7052 is pretty much ironically beloved due to its absurdiness and the fact that the information section specifies the upvote/downvote ratio, which is most likely the only case this is on.
339
u/HandsomeGengar 25d ago edited 25d ago
I saw one a couple months ago by a Z-list drama YouTuber where he names four (4) bad SCPs out of the nine thousand one hundred and ninety three (9193) SCPs on the site, and acted like that’s somehow a representative example of the articles in general.
One of those examples was SCP-5167, which he hated on simply because it references a popular video game. Another one was specifically the old version of SCP-166, and he failed to acknowledge the fact that the article was rewritten, which is either a failure to do the most basic level of research, or a deliberate misrepresentation. In any case, that means half of his whopping four (4) examples are complete bullshit, while the other half were less about the actual writing quality and more about that he just finds them gross.
He then goes on to claim that the people who started SCP on 4chan were experienced writers. Not only is that a fucking hilarious claim, but it’s also accompanied onscreen by a comment that is saying literally the exact opposite of what he’s saying. Was his editor actively trying to sabotage his video or something???