I wasn't saying that it was a bad idea necessarily the links were provided to give you some inspiration and perhaps help you avoid the pitfalls that led to at least the two SCP links failing to draw much interest. I was merely trying to illustrate the fact that the concept of a tesseract has existed for some time (the earliest cited source on the wiki article you linked is from 1893), and doing an SCP using one has been attempted in the past without much success. I think "unoriginal" is perhaps a little stronger a criticism than intended. Are you saying its unoriginal? Doesn't need hand-holding through the mathematics and theory behind it? I don't understand the reason behind the first paragraph of your review. I'm sorry if at any time I am flippant, and no personal offence is intended. As I have gained very little in the way of polish and inspiration for my concept. It is my personal belief that your review fails in doing this. This thread is for posing ideas, and for people to attempt to add flavor, substance, opinions, or any other things that may help them create a more fully-fledged idea. Not to be defensive or opinionated here, but this idea is very uncommon next to any of the dozens of SCP's that caused the Indian ocean tsunami. The cited drafts and critiques thread is over three years old now, and was never made into an article. It might as well be an unrelated disscusion of abstract 3d fractal (I don't really understand why you cited it). The cited reddit post is not of a tesseract or 4d cube and even so, no article was made subsequently of it. The cited SCP entry is an old archived post that was deleted in the mass edit, and therefore is void. While the name "Tesseract" has been used in art and media (Most notably in the Marvel cinematic universe), none of these objects are actual tesseracts (Cubes with four dimensions). Are you saying its unoriginal? Doesn't need hand-holding through the mathematics and theory behind it?Īlthough most points in your post are valid, i have a problem with a few:īut I think tesseracts might be mainstream enough to where most people have some idea as to what they are (they were in a few popular movies within the last decade or so at least). Preface: I don't understand the reason behind the first paragraph of your review. The answers to those questions probably don't all need to be in the finished product, but they might give you some ideas as to where you want to go with this concept. Other questions that might spark some ideas: "what effect does it have on traditional three dimensional objects/reality?" "who made it/where did it come from?" "how dangerous/benign is it?" "how was it tested and what did those tests show?" and of course "what are the containment procedures for this thing?" (which would probably logically follow from answering other questions about it).
A good way to start brainstorming would probably be to ask, in the most general sense, "what does it do?" A quick search for tesseracts related to the SCP Foundation found this SCP entry (at a zero rating at the time of this posting), this reddit post discussing the idea to some extent (and including a pretty neat picture), and this old SCP Drafts/Critiques thread (which has a working sandbox entry to boot).Ī 4D cube is an intriguing object, maybe not a bad starting point, but I think it probably needs more than simply describing a weird object to be successful the wiki entry you linked basically does that. I'm pretty new here so I can't say for certain if this is a common idea or not, but I think tesseracts might be mainstream enough to where most people have some idea as to what they are (they were in a few popular movies within the last decade or so at least).
0 kommentar(er)
