Tip.It Times: 25 Jan 2009

[yuriqiu]

The article on taking care of your pet rock has convinced me that I should release my Guthix raptor and raise a rock instead.

 

 

 

Also, the article on the gods is a little short >.> I expected much more when I read the title, still it was a nice read. Hurray for Tip it Times =]

[Necromagus]

I'm glad people liked my article on pet rocks, although I hope those of you that are rushing off to get your own realize that it's still a big responsibility. I'm aware that both my articles this week are rather silly, but I hope that doesn't put you off too much :)

[fakeitormakeit]

I don't think I knew there was more then just Saradomin and Zamorak until like a year of playing till I found out about Guthix and I didn't find out that there were any other gods for like three years or something lol

[Maleficus1055]

Meh, I can't stand fictional articles, and the Pet Rock one just made me go :/

[imzachhubla]

nice read. i especially like the pet rock article. GREAT JOB!!!!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[n_odie]

It is fantastic to see some of the responses from those who usually do not respond to the Times. This week was defiantly a lets do something different week. Articles that reach people and not others is actually a good thing. The War Running will have its final release next week for those who where wondering, proof reading it, already it should please all the people following it!

 

 

 

Also a big thanks to the quest authors this week. Always nice to get some fresh perspectives on the Times. For those liking the Gods article, one of our writers is currently writing a piece up that should blow your socks off, length shouldn't be an issue. 8-)

 

 

 

Also, for anyone looking, how do you guys like the new "did you know" format? Think it betters them and brings more attention?

 

 

 

Anywhos, thank YOU for supporting the times!

[waheera1]

[hide=]

I feel like being quite harsh today, so apologies to the authors, but here I go:

 

 

 

Article 1: God Wars

 

 

 

Why was this written? It may have provided some small part of the history of Runescape's gods, but did it actually have a point? I read it through and was still waiting for a punchline or explanation of what had prompted this short and incomplete history lesson.

 

 

 

Article 2: Pet Rock

 

 

 

I'll grant that bits of this were midly entertaining, but once again, why?!

 

 

 

Article 3: The Imp and the Jinn

 

 

 

Didn't really seem to make a lot of sense if we're being honest. Winding itself into ever more ridiculous situations, the story seemed to ramble on a bit as an inconsistent collection of ideas placed together almost coincidentally rather than because of a coherent story line which required it. Runescape is after all a fictitious game with a complex mythology of its own, and so some peculiarity should be expected I suppose, but I thought this article took it a bit too far without good reason.

 

 

 

Article 4: Hunter...

 

 

 

I agree that hunter as a skill has severe limitations. And I have experienced all of the ones laid out in this article, so I genuinely do sympathise. The only problem I had with it was that I couldn't tell if it was supposed to be just an elaborate rant about jagex' incompetence, or whether it was designed as constructive criticism. I got the impression that it was more biased to the former option, and whilst I will gladly rant about many things in the game to friends whilst playing, I personally prefer reading articles that were written for a more specific point. If, after the rant, some more suggestions could have been made I might have been more interested, sorry.

 

 

 

Article 5: Construction

 

 

 

I'll start off with saying I really don't like construction. It's a money drain that I personally don't see the point in past building an altar and some useful home portals. So expect this to be harsh anyway!

 

 

 

My personal take on any skill cape is: "Congratulations!!", I don't honestly care which it is. If it's one of the lesser 99s that are being frowned upon these days such as cooking, fletching etc, I'll still congratulate. Similarly if it's a combat cape I'll offer a "well done" comment, and the same goes for buyables.

 

 

 

This is where I have a small issue with the article on construction. What motivated this article? Why was it written? To get back at those who deride buyable skills? If so, I'll put it simply that I'd be about as interested in reading a defensive article written by a "master" chef, or indeed watching mould grow. The endless ranting that goes on in forums debating quest cape v skill cape and the like achieves precisely nothing, but I would rather read a good general commentary than a specific article extolling the virtues of one skill 99.

 

 

 

The final paragraph was an absolute blessing, and I'm glad tripsis wrote it =D> but the rest of the article left me bored and disinterested, which presumably wasn't the intended effect.

 

 

 

 

 

I'll be honest, this week was a pretty poor one for the times in my opinion. Make of that what you will, but I didn't enjoy reading 5 articles that were written without a clear objective or any reason why. It's rare that I'll get so bored by the times, but hey, it just happened!

 

 

 

Oh and just to take any personal bad feelings out of it, to all writers!!!!

[/hide]

 

 

 

I'm sorry waheera, but these were solid articles, and you should not criticize them.

 

 

 

I do sympathize with you somewhat on article one. However, even if it didn't say much, it was very well put.

 

 

 

Article Two was brilliant and amusing. You can't just simply put "why" at the end of it, and expect people to think you're witty!

 

 

 

Article Three was an excellent short story, one that I enjoyed reading. Your "critique" basically just said "It didn't make sense" over and over again. Yet the story was contiguous and self-explanatory. It was very clear, and even managed to have a satisfactory ending.

 

 

 

Article Four did lack direction. The writer couldn't seem to make up his mind if he was critiquing himself, or the hunting skill. But some good imagery in there, like when the imaginary skill cape was described.

 

 

 

Article Five was more coherent than you give it credit for. Tripsis was simply trying to show that the Construction cape isn't as simple as making a lot of oak larders. Again, using large words, and throwing "why?" into the mix make a critique doth not.

 

 

 

-Recksash

 

 

 

ps. was the Genie inspired by the one from Terry Pratchet's books?

 

 

 

There I'm afraid we differ. Regardless of whether you deem them to be good articles or not, if I feel there is something to criticise then I will. Unfortunately this week I did, and that is NOT a common occurrance. If they really were so solid I would not be criticising.

 

 

 

The question I put to you regarding article 1 is: "WHAT was well put?" Yes it had some facts in it, but that does not provide any reasoning for creating the article, and writing "facts" based on runescape mythology requires no talent in itself.

 

 

 

Article 2: If I was expecting or wanting people to find me witty I'd've made more of an effort. My problem with the article was that whilst it was entertaining, what was the point of writing it? That is all.

 

 

 

Article 3: It was entirely pointless. And that I'm afraid does not make for a satisfying read. I did not think it worked at all well as a standalone story and since the new format of the times has come to include a fictional article, I'd rather it took a more sophisticated route than a peurile tale of an imp's (mis)fortunes.

 

 

 

Article 4: I'll not argue the imagery was entertaining, but personally I'd find an emote such as the one described completely ridiculous and out of place within runescape.

 

 

 

Article 5: If you plan to lambast me for using "long words" and the like, don't finish with such a ridiculous final sentence, else you will be hoisted by your own petard. If you wanted to tell me that writing "why?" doesn't make a critique using the word doth, at least put it in the right place. For example: "...doth make not a critique".

 

 

 

Unfortunately I think YOU miss the point of tripsis' article. He is not proving that you don't need to just build oak larders at all, in fact he clearly references oak planks as 'the' method of levelling construction (whether or not it's how he actually levelled is irrelevant, but that's how he made comment on the cost of materials). Quite frankly he'd have been an idiot if he used oak logs and didn't make oak larders. Might I also refer you to the second page of responses to this thread for a much better written article on buyable skills (as referenced in by troacctid). The rest of the article focussed only on his experience of buying the materials and teaches nothing about construction or does anything to dispell the belief that it is basically a skill that burns money for little useful gain.

 

 

 

In general I felt that the articles in this week's times served no purpose at all. The reason I am being so harsh is because I know that the times usually contain higher quality articles, each carefully considered and presented, to whose standard this week's articles certainly did not match up.

[Y2k949]

The God Wars letter was terrific.. It seems like much research went into it, and it's quite helpful in understanding a bit of the history of Runescape.

 

 

 

The fictional article about the imp was quite interesting, and rather funny :lol: it also had a surprising ending!

 

 

 

The guide to a pet rock was a very unique and cretive letter, and was a very entertaining read.

 

 

 

The guest articles were also terrific! I thought the "What's the point" article was interesting, but it doesn't relate to me, as I have a rather short attencion span for anything I do not find entertaining :

 

My favorite was probably the "Riches to rags" article, because I am an avid fan of construction, and have been slowly leveling it up when I have a few million gp to spend ;)

 

 

 

 

 

So I'd like to say a big thank-you to all the writers of these articles, because you have given me something to do on a boring Sunday evening, when I should be studying for exams :wall:

 

 

 

BTW- The new "did you know" format is awesome! :thumbsup: =D> \

[Psycho_Robot]

I loved the veiled reference to "a rolling stone gathers no moss" in the pet rock article :P

[skiller43v3r]

Amaising article by tripsis i love it!!!! nice job btw psycho (love your blog to lol)

 

 

 

jes

[Quyneax]

To waheera1:

 

for your reading pleasure

 

If someone liked it, it has succeeded. And I did. So.

 

 

 

(I am one of 'you')

 

 

 

No, really. I think that you read wrongly. Should I ask why the Lord of the Rings was written? Or the Mists of Avalon? (both great books, 1000 pages each, keeps you busy, too). These were published for our reading pleasure, as many pieces are. The Times is not a tome of learning, and therefore not required to write solid facts only, indeed, it does regularly feature articles meant to convince. This week, that was the article on contruction. But not every text follows only one schedule; while school teaches us text types, experience (and higher grades) teach us that some text may be written to do all types at once.

 

 

 

In short: Article one is for pleasure. There is pleasure in learning, too, when used at ease. Article two and three, likewise, but silly. No big deal (bad-writteness-wise). Then on hunter: I believe that is on pleasure again. Empathy makes us feal human, and nice. Then the fourth is left, which is, like the first, a mixture. Now it is not between learning and amusing, but between convincing and amusing. Though it could be learning for those uneducated in the debate.

 

 

 

The pleasure is obviously first. As it should, I think.

[SirHartlar]

I enjoyed the articles on Construction and Hunter, they really emphasised the important to me of training skills you enjoy and not for capes or 'respect'.

[Misterknowitall]

I liked the first 2 articles the most.

 

I'm really interested in the history and mythology of Gielinor, so it was an interesting read. The part of the Gods claiming they created the worlds really puts people to think.

 

The article on the pet rock was entertaining and well-written. Almost as reading a real "how to" guide.

 

I haven't read the third article, so I can't say anything about it. I'm not really into fanfiction/made up stories.

 

The fourth and fith article both have a good point, but they could have been merged as they're both skill-related.

[waheera1]

To waheera1:

 

for your reading pleasure

 

If someone liked it, it has succeeded. And I did. So.

 

 

 

(I am one of 'you')

 

 

 

No, really. I think that you read wrongly. Should I ask why the Lord of the Rings was written? Or the Mists of Avalon? (both great books, 1000 pages each, keeps you busy, too). These were published for our reading pleasure, as many pieces are. The Times is not a tome of learning, and therefore not required to write solid facts only, indeed, it does regularly feature articles meant to convince. This week, that was the article on contruction. But not every text follows only one schedule; while school teaches us text types, experience (and higher grades) teach us that some text may be written to do all types at once.

 

 

 

In short: Article one is for pleasure. There is pleasure in learning, too, when used at ease. Article two and three, likewise, but silly. No big deal (bad-writteness-wise). Then on hunter: I believe that is on pleasure again. Empathy makes us feal human, and nice. Then the fourth is left, which is, like the first, a mixture. Now it is not between learning and amusing, but between convincing and amusing. Though it could be learning for those uneducated in the debate.

 

 

 

The pleasure is obviously first. As it should, I think.

 

 

 

But if you take that view, what is the point of the discussion topic? It may be for our pleasure, but if I did not enjoy it then I have as much right as you to post about it.

 

 

 

As for reading "wrongly", do not presume to insult me by suggesting that I don't know those books or have not read them. Or indeed that I am not well aware of the pleasures of learning. If i dislike a book, I will write a bad review in the hope that the next will be better. Thus I do the same when it comes to these forums.

 

 

 

On topic of why those books were written, who knows. However, they do follow a sophisticated and well constructed storyline based on the incredible imaginations of their authors. My point is not so much why the articles were written, but why they were written as poorly as they were. I have no doubt that any of the articles (even the ridiculous imp) could have been very interesting and/or enjoyable for me to read if they were better considered before the writing began.

 

 

 

I never once said that the times should be fact based only. I merely stated that the times should have a point. By and large this week's articles contained neither facts or a point.

 

 

 

"Empathy makes us feel human, and nice." That I have to say is one of the more pointless comments I've ever come across.

[Psycho_Robot]

To waheera1:

 

for your reading pleasure

 

If someone liked it, it has succeeded. And I did. So.

 

 

 

(I am one of 'you')

 

 

 

No, really. I think that you read wrongly. Should I ask why the Lord of the Rings was written? Or the Mists of Avalon? (both great books, 1000 pages each, keeps you busy, too). These were published for our reading pleasure, as many pieces are. The Times is not a tome of learning, and therefore not required to write solid facts only, indeed, it does regularly feature articles meant to convince. This week, that was the article on contruction. But not every text follows only one schedule; while school teaches us text types, experience (and higher grades) teach us that some text may be written to do all types at once.

 

 

 

In short: Article one is for pleasure. There is pleasure in learning, too, when used at ease. Article two and three, likewise, but silly. No big deal (bad-writteness-wise). Then on hunter: I believe that is on pleasure again. Empathy makes us feal human, and nice. Then the fourth is left, which is, like the first, a mixture. Now it is not between learning and amusing, but between convincing and amusing. Though it could be learning for those uneducated in the debate.

 

 

 

The pleasure is obviously first. As it should, I think.

 

 

 

But if you take that view, what is the point of the discussion topic? It may be for our pleasure, but if I did not enjoy it then I have as much right as you to post about it.

 

 

 

As for reading "wrongly", do not presume to insult me by suggesting that I don't know those books or have not read them. Or indeed that I am not well aware of the pleasures of learning. If i dislike a book, I will write a bad review in the hope that the next will be better. Thus I do the same when it comes to these forums.

 

 

 

On topic of why those books were written, who knows. However, they do follow a sophisticated and well constructed storyline based on the incredible imaginations of their authors. My point is not so much why the articles were written, but why they were written as poorly as they were. I have no doubt that any of the articles (even the ridiculous imp) could have been very interesting and/or enjoyable for me to read if they were better considered before the writing began.

 

 

 

I never once said that the times should be fact based only. I merely stated that the times should have a point. By and large this week's articles contained neither facts or a point.

 

 

 

"Empathy makes us feel human, and nice." That I have to say is one of the more pointless comments I've ever come across.

 

 

 

What kind of "point" would you expect the articles to have? I'm a beginner in this respect; that was only my second article. I don't yet know exactly to what the readers will respond positively. I'm more interested in criticism than compliments at this point, so tell me, how could that article have been better?

[Earth_Poet]

but personally I'd find an emote such as the one described completely ridiculous and out of place within runescape.

 

 

 

That was the point of the emote. It was something over the top and would never really be put in the game. It wasn't a serious criticism about Jagex, but to demonstrate how sometimes we like to blame the game instead of asking "What am I doing wrong?"

 

 

 

When you say there doesn't seem to be a point I can respond for myself and say you are absolutely right! There was no point to be made. It was meant to be amusing for the players that can relate to it. Either you get it or you don't.

 

 

 

I'm not trying to be defensive. I just thought maybe that could help clarify some things. I appreciate the criticism. :D

 

 

 

...and I have to say I loved the pet rock story. That was cute.

[waheera1]

To waheera1:

 

for your reading pleasure

 

If someone liked it, it has succeeded. And I did. So.

 

 

 

(I am one of 'you')

 

 

 

No, really. I think that you read wrongly. Should I ask why the Lord of the Rings was written? Or the Mists of Avalon? (both great books, 1000 pages each, keeps you busy, too). These were published for our reading pleasure, as many pieces are. The Times is not a tome of learning, and therefore not required to write solid facts only, indeed, it does regularly feature articles meant to convince. This week, that was the article on contruction. But not every text follows only one schedule; while school teaches us text types, experience (and higher grades) teach us that some text may be written to do all types at once.

 

 

 

In short: Article one is for pleasure. There is pleasure in learning, too, when used at ease. Article two and three, likewise, but silly. No big deal (bad-writteness-wise). Then on hunter: I believe that is on pleasure again. Empathy makes us feal human, and nice. Then the fourth is left, which is, like the first, a mixture. Now it is not between learning and amusing, but between convincing and amusing. Though it could be learning for those uneducated in the debate.

 

 

 

The pleasure is obviously first. As it should, I think.

 

 

 

But if you take that view, what is the point of the discussion topic? It may be for our pleasure, but if I did not enjoy it then I have as much right as you to post about it.

 

 

 

As for reading "wrongly", do not presume to insult me by suggesting that I don't know those books or have not read them. Or indeed that I am not well aware of the pleasures of learning. If i dislike a book, I will write a bad review in the hope that the next will be better. Thus I do the same when it comes to these forums.

 

 

 

On topic of why those books were written, who knows. However, they do follow a sophisticated and well constructed storyline based on the incredible imaginations of their authors. My point is not so much why the articles were written, but why they were written as poorly as they were. I have no doubt that any of the articles (even the ridiculous imp) could have been very interesting and/or enjoyable for me to read if they were better considered before the writing began.

 

 

 

I never once said that the times should be fact based only. I merely stated that the times should have a point. By and large this week's articles contained neither facts or a point.

 

 

 

"Empathy makes us feel human, and nice." That I have to say is one of the more pointless comments I've ever come across.

 

 

 

What kind of "point" would you expect the articles to have? I'm a beginner in this respect; that was only my second article. I don't yet know exactly to what the readers will respond positively. I'm more interested in criticism than compliments at this point, so tell me, how could that article have been better?

 

 

 

First up, before I say anything else, whenever you're writing ALWAYS ask yourself: "Why am I writing this?" If you yourself don't know, it will be harder to achieve anything with what you're writing. If you have a clear purpose, such as a "religious" preach even, you will be able to focus what you write much better to support your ideas. It is always harder reading through something that doesn't have a purpose, so if you're not sure what yours is, sit back, get a brew/pint/whatever and think about what it is you REALLY want to write about. I don't know what the times are like with regard to making you write to specific topics, but I'd recommend you focus largely on anything that really interests you. Then you can contemplate how you're going to make other people read it to find out why you find it interesting.

 

 

 

Also stick to one topic, or make it clear when you're switching within your article: your article was all about gods, but touched on 1) the gods, 2) their dishonesty/unreliability, 3) the narrators within the game concerning gods, 4) you finished with asking who "you" would support? That's 4 things that could be individually approached, or at least separately paragraphed, which became blurred together at times. Keep it simpler for yourself and it will become an easier read as well as making your job easier.

 

 

 

To be honest my main issue with it is that it is too vague for the topic. I don't take a hugely significant interest in the various gods of runescape, given their number and essential insignificance in the great scheme of things, but I have come across them many times in my questing etc. I am well aware that there is a vast amount of information on each of these deities which was not even brushed upon. Without a clear purpose for the article, the end result became a brief and even at times inaccurate ramble through the gods. For this reason I think your article would have been much better if it could've been split into multiple parts over several weeks, perhaps even focussing on just one god at a time. This would have allowed a far greater amount of information to be presented and would have made for a more interesting read.

 

 

 

Personally I found your final paragraph was the most interesting for me: an explanation of the confusion within runescape's histories due to the unreliable nature of its many sources. Here you have a golden opportunity to explain the various viewpoints and key narrators using the wealth of information available, which I think could be made into a much more interesting article. Perhaps working on a theme such as that would make the information easier to present in an interesting fashion, rather than facing yourself up with a mountain of information to squeeze into an envelope.

 

 

 

As a final note, when writing about runescape's histories etc, only write about them if you have absolute conviction: chances are that if anything isn't thoroughly researched and you write about it, someone else will already have written a better article on that particular topic.

 

 

 

I hope that helped, feel free to post back if anything doesn't quite make sense or you disagree with anything I've said. I would also add that despite my harsh postings, good effort in writing the article in the first place and for taking the criticism. I understand the challenge and look forward to reading more of your articles. =D>

[waheera1]

but personally I'd find an emote such as the one described completely ridiculous and out of place within runescape.

 

 

 

That was the point of the emote. It was something over the top and would never really be put in the game. It wasn't a serious criticism about Jagex, but to demonstrate how sometimes we like to blame the game instead of asking "What am I doing wrong?"

 

 

 

When you say there doesn't seem to be a point I can respond for myself and say you are absolutely right! There was no point to be made. It was meant to be amusing for the players that can relate to it. Either you get it or you don't.

 

 

 

I'm not trying to be defensive. I just thought maybe that could help clarify some things. I appreciate the criticism. :D

 

 

 

...and I have to say I loved the pet rock story. That was cute.

 

 

 

Fair enough, I would have thought there were better ways to demonstrate it on the topic of hunting, but I can totally relate to the point you were trying to get across.

[Troacctid]

First up, before I say anything else, whenever you're writing ALWAYS ask yourself: "Why am I writing this?" If you yourself don't know, it will be harder to achieve anything with what you're writing. If you have a clear purpose, such as a "religious" preach even, you will be able to focus what you write much better to support your ideas. It is always harder reading through something that doesn't have a purpose, so if you're not sure what yours is, sit back, get a brew/pint/whatever and think about what it is you REALLY want to write about. I don't know what the times are like with regard to making you write to specific topics, but I'd recommend you focus largely on anything that really interests you. Then you can contemplate how you're going to make other people read it to find out why you find it interesting.

 

 

 

Also stick to one topic, or make it clear when you're switching within your article: your article was all about gods, but touched on 1) the gods, 2) their dishonesty/unreliability, 3) the narrators within the game concerning gods, 4) you finished with asking who "you" would support? That's 4 things that could be individually approached, or at least separately paragraphed, which became blurred together at times. Keep it simpler for yourself and it will become an easier read as well as making your job easier.

 

 

 

To be honest my main issue with it is that it is too vague for the topic. I don't take a hugely significant interest in the various gods of runescape, given their number and essential insignificance in the great scheme of things, but I have come across them many times in my questing etc. I am well aware that there is a vast amount of information on each of these deities which was not even brushed upon. Without a clear purpose for the article, the end result became a brief and even at times inaccurate ramble through the gods. For this reason I think your article would have been much better if it could've been split into multiple parts over several weeks, perhaps even focussing on just one god at a time. This would have allowed a far greater amount of information to be presented and would have made for a more interesting read.

 

 

 

Personally I found your final paragraph was the most interesting for me: an explanation of the confusion within runescape's histories due to the unreliable nature of its many sources. Here you have a golden opportunity to explain the various viewpoints and key narrators using the wealth of information available, which I think could be made into a much more interesting article. Perhaps working on a theme such as that would make the information easier to present in an interesting fashion, rather than facing yourself up with a mountain of information to squeeze into an envelope.

 

 

 

As a final note, when writing about runescape's histories etc, only write about them if you have absolute conviction: chances are that if anything isn't thoroughly researched and you write about it, someone else will already have written a better article on that particular topic.

 

 

 

I hope that helped, feel free to post back if anything doesn't quite make sense or you disagree with anything I've said. I would also add that despite my harsh postings, good effort in writing the article in the first place and for taking the criticism. I understand the challenge and look forward to reading more of your articles. =D>

 

I strongly agree with you.

[waheera1]

First up, before I say anything else, whenever you're writing ALWAYS ask yourself: "Why am I writing this?" If you yourself don't know, it will be harder to achieve anything with what you're writing. If you have a clear purpose, such as a "religious" preach even, you will be able to focus what you write much better to support your ideas. It is always harder reading through something that doesn't have a purpose, so if you're not sure what yours is, sit back, get a brew/pint/whatever and think about what it is you REALLY want to write about. I don't know what the times are like with regard to making you write to specific topics, but I'd recommend you focus largely on anything that really interests you. Then you can contemplate how you're going to make other people read it to find out why you find it interesting.

 

 

 

Also stick to one topic, or make it clear when you're switching within your article: your article was all about gods, but touched on 1) the gods, 2) their dishonesty/unreliability, 3) the narrators within the game concerning gods, 4) you finished with asking who "you" would support? That's 4 things that could be individually approached, or at least separately paragraphed, which became blurred together at times. Keep it simpler for yourself and it will become an easier read as well as making your job easier.

 

 

 

To be honest my main issue with it is that it is too vague for the topic. I don't take a hugely significant interest in the various gods of runescape, given their number and essential insignificance in the great scheme of things, but I have come across them many times in my questing etc. I am well aware that there is a vast amount of information on each of these deities which was not even brushed upon. Without a clear purpose for the article, the end result became a brief and even at times inaccurate ramble through the gods. For this reason I think your article would have been much better if it could've been split into multiple parts over several weeks, perhaps even focussing on just one god at a time. This would have allowed a far greater amount of information to be presented and would have made for a more interesting read.

 

 

 

Personally I found your final paragraph was the most interesting for me: an explanation of the confusion within runescape's histories due to the unreliable nature of its many sources. Here you have a golden opportunity to explain the various viewpoints and key narrators using the wealth of information available, which I think could be made into a much more interesting article. Perhaps working on a theme such as that would make the information easier to present in an interesting fashion, rather than facing yourself up with a mountain of information to squeeze into an envelope.

 

 

 

As a final note, when writing about runescape's histories etc, only write about them if you have absolute conviction: chances are that if anything isn't thoroughly researched and you write about it, someone else will already have written a better article on that particular topic.

 

 

 

I hope that helped, feel free to post back if anything doesn't quite make sense or you disagree with anything I've said. I would also add that despite my harsh postings, good effort in writing the article in the first place and for taking the criticism. I understand the challenge and look forward to reading more of your articles. =D>

 

I strongly agree with you.

 

Thankyou kindly. :D

[Psycho_Robot]

First up, before I say anything else, whenever you're writing ALWAYS ask yourself: "Why am I writing this?" If you yourself don't know, it will be harder to achieve anything with what you're writing. If you have a clear purpose, such as a "religious" preach even, you will be able to focus what you write much better to support your ideas. It is always harder reading through something that doesn't have a purpose, so if you're not sure what yours is, sit back, get a brew/pint/whatever and think about what it is you REALLY want to write about. I don't know what the times are like with regard to making you write to specific topics, but I'd recommend you focus largely on anything that really interests you. Then you can contemplate how you're going to make other people read it to find out why you find it interesting.

 

 

 

Also stick to one topic, or make it clear when you're switching within your article: your article was all about gods, but touched on 1) the gods, 2) their dishonesty/unreliability, 3) the narrators within the game concerning gods, 4) you finished with asking who "you" would support? That's 4 things that could be individually approached, or at least separately paragraphed, which became blurred together at times. Keep it simpler for yourself and it will become an easier read as well as making your job easier.

 

 

 

To be honest my main issue with it is that it is too vague for the topic. I don't take a hugely significant interest in the various gods of runescape, given their number and essential insignificance in the great scheme of things, but I have come across them many times in my questing etc. I am well aware that there is a vast amount of information on each of these deities which was not even brushed upon. Without a clear purpose for the article, the end result became a brief and even at times inaccurate ramble through the gods. For this reason I think your article would have been much better if it could've been split into multiple parts over several weeks, perhaps even focussing on just one god at a time. This would have allowed a far greater amount of information to be presented and would have made for a more interesting read.

 

 

 

Personally I found your final paragraph was the most interesting for me: an explanation of the confusion within runescape's histories due to the unreliable nature of its many sources. Here you have a golden opportunity to explain the various viewpoints and key narrators using the wealth of information available, which I think could be made into a much more interesting article. Perhaps working on a theme such as that would make the information easier to present in an interesting fashion, rather than facing yourself up with a mountain of information to squeeze into an envelope.

 

 

 

As a final note, when writing about runescape's histories etc, only write about them if you have absolute conviction: chances are that if anything isn't thoroughly researched and you write about it, someone else will already have written a better article on that particular topic.

 

 

 

I hope that helped, feel free to post back if anything doesn't quite make sense or you disagree with anything I've said. I would also add that despite my harsh postings, good effort in writing the article in the first place and for taking the criticism. I understand the challenge and look forward to reading more of your articles. =D>

 

 

 

One of my greatest struggles with the whole historical article concept is how do I make it an editorial instead of just a history lecture? This article was my attempt to blend the two together, but apparently they weren't blended well enough. I'm wary of going for a straight historical fact article, but my hybrid history/editorial article and my fully editorial article both didn't go over as well as I'd hoped, so perhaps I should just go for it. I suppose the worst thing that could happen is that I would be lynched by those determined and resourceful enough to track me down, but I'm sure I can avoid that by getting several more firewalls.

 

 

 

P.S. criticism is tragically underrated.

[daseeker]

I'm replying to the dragon crossbow article idea.

 

 

 

Ya good idea but simply put, I never think it will happen, bolts already have a special and you had a good idea for a special but it would be tough. besides, making a dragon crossbow would probably become best range weapon in game especially if special has extra chance for bolt spec, dragonstone (e) ftw anybody?

[strilmus]

I just wanted to make a small point: Guthix has never directly claimed to have created Gielinor. In fact, it (Guthix doesn't really stick to any kind of describable form) seems to have given the most information about itself compared to the other two.

 

 

 

Still, I find Guthix's do-nothing attitude rather frustrating. The balance keeps getting threatened by crazy people every month and frankly I can't go around all day fixing stuff that nobody else wants to do and then watch my high level NPC compatriots get deep-fried by some power-hungry Maharajjat. Frankly, leaving the Stone of Jas just lying around in this plane is very irresponisible. Some of us have better things to do, thank you very much.

[Troacctid]

I just wanted to make a small point: Guthix has never directly claimed to have created Gielinor. In fact, it (Guthix doesn't really stick to any kind of describable form) seems to have given the most information about itself compared to the other two.

 

 

 

Still, I find Guthix's do-nothing attitude rather frustrating. The balance keeps getting threatened by crazy people every month and frankly I can't go around all day fixing stuff that nobody else wants to do and then watch my high level NPC compatriots get deep-fried by some power-hungry Maharajjat. Frankly, leaving the Stone of Jas just lying around in this plane is very irresponisible. Some of us have better things to do, thank you very much.

 

At the bottom of an incredibly deep chasm, locked with multiple puzzles, and guarded by a powerful Balance Elemental with a combat level comparable to the bosses in the God Wars Dungeon...not what I call "just lying around." :roll:

[Psycho_Robot]

I just wanted to make a small point: Guthix has never directly claimed to have created Gielinor. In fact, it (Guthix doesn't really stick to any kind of describable form) seems to have given the most information about itself compared to the other two.

 

 

 

Still, I find Guthix's do-nothing attitude rather frustrating. The balance keeps getting threatened by crazy people every month and frankly I can't go around all day fixing stuff that nobody else wants to do and then watch my high level NPC compatriots get deep-fried by some power-hungry Maharajjat. Frankly, leaving the Stone of Jas just lying around in this plane is very irresponisible. Some of us have better things to do, thank you very much.

 

At the bottom of an incredibly deep chasm, locked with multiple puzzles, and guarded by a powerful Balance Elemental with a combat level comparable to the bosses in the God Wars Dungeon...not what I call "just lying around." :roll:

 

 

 

Not to start an argument or anything, but compared to what Guthix COULD have done, what he DID do was VERY simple.