Disappointing article. Several baseless assumptions predicated your disappointment (nobody used secret bases originally? really? those things were the shit everywhere) and several parts of the article were unclear or confusing (secret bases aren't pretty immediately followed by a line about this one gorgeous base area). Your analysis of why bases flopped and the four points related were accurate but could have used more supporting evidence. One great example is where you title your paragraph "you can only keep 5 friends but 20 is better" and follow up with a paragraph...that doesn't really talk about that, instead complaining about the poor distribution of available items. The degree of conversationalism in the piece detracted from the flow of writing and obscured the message.
With the exception about the incorrect fact about people's use of secret bases I thought the first and fourth sections were good but the middle two could have been significantly better and are areas to look at for improvement.
Hopefully my tone is more constructive than derogatory, infer the former
