I enjoy opinion pieces and looked forward to this latest edition of the times. However, this week's piece seemed more like a ramble of thoughts on the subject with no real conclusion. At a few points, it outright contradicts itself. It was unsatisfying to read and I got the sense that the author didn't really have any belief in what he was writing on, or it would've been more cohesive.
The article opens stating that many would have quit if death was final. It concludes guessing for a "mode" just like that. It puts the introduction and conclusion completely opposite of each other and would've been better off being explained throughout the article. ("Why is this important? Why do I think
it's important?") Then it asks a question in the middle of the piece when we, the audience, already know the answer to ("Is the risk?") from the first 3 paragraphs
, even without the common knowledge your average scaper has. Even still, this could have been a point to emphasize despite being out of place, yet that emphasis is lost by an overuse of linebreaks. (This actually happens throughout the article as well.) It challenges the physics of the game lazily, jumping from gravestones to lack of environmental danger, yet doesn't even mention why that's a problem to them personally. (And it's problematic because they disrupt the narrative context, breaking immersion, however you want to describe it.)
Were it not for everything above though, I would still say the article is flawed. The piece lacks any ties to current-day events to make it relevant. It's the sort of article I'd expect to see after grave timers were extended or after the Dwarf King gravestone was released. At the very least, an opportunity to make this gripe relevant was lost by ignoring the behemoth boss Vorago and how it's entirely risk free compared to, I don't know, any other boss released prior to 2007. Mentioning GWD would have been a great example since it was the last big boss set we received before gravestones that is still relevant today. Or failing that, even having a better recall of Runescape's history would have helped since there was
no turmoil over how player drops worked because when the wilderness was removed gravestones were clearly explained to players and released at the same time free trade was removed.
Overall the article just seemed ill informed, latching onto any stray thought possible to stretch the article length, and made no attempt to be relevant to current events when it was so mindblowingly easy to do so. That sort of speaks to a lack of presence in today's Runescape. Even still, if more effort was made to tie it to personal feelings and better organized those thoughts, the out-of-touch vibe you get as a reader wouldn't have been such a big deal. It made good, sporadic points, points that are just timeless because they've been there as long as the game has. Unfortunately, these weren't emphasized and sloppily spread through the article and seemed more like dumb luck than actual informed opinions.