I didn't like either article very much, this week. That being said, though, neither was poor. I felt that the first had some grammar issues that made it distracting. (The second had a few, too, but they were manageable.) The first article was a fairly decent summary, but I felt that points like had very little value. As someone who has studied Latin for years, I do enjoy coming across it in every-day life, but it doesn't make the game, itself, any different. It's not like the Corporeal (from corpis, corporis, n.) Beast's name made it more appear powerful to the average player =p. The fact that "Nex" (death, murder) was left out in the article surprised me, too. Apart from my grammar rant, (sorry!) I felt that the article gave me little insight past that of the Knowledge Base; it felt more like rephrased, embellished ideas found on the RS homepage rather than original thought. Overall though, it wasn't bad =). (Hey, I read the whole thing, right?) The second article was strictly a summary, to me. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it keeps things very factual and less insightful than I'd like them to be. Although the parts about themes and experience rates were valid, I disagree about Dungeoneering being alone in its "never the same twice" aspect. Slayer is definitely similar, and other skills can be, too, if you train them in certain ways. In response to these paragraphs, I felt that the author should suggest something in order to improve the state of current events. I was looking for that opinion throughout... Some sort of insight as to where things should go from here would have concluded the piece more strongly. Sorry for the critical responses... I did read both articles to the end, so they weren't really "bad"... but I would have liked to have seen a little extra!