Sign me up.. You have to have played SCP Containment Breach and know what SCP-682 is to get it... This is SCP 682 Are you sure now it's realy wort it? Sign me up You have to played SCP Containment Breach and know what SCP-682 is get it This 682 Are you sure now it's realy wort it?
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (17)
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
User avatar #1 - furrysheaperd
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/24/2013) [-]
and where do i play this?
User avatar #2 to #1 - aarkthedragon [OP]
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/24/2013) [-]
www.scpcbgame.com/

Sorry, but 682 doesn't really look like that.
#3 to #2 - furrysheaperd
Reply +13 123456789123345869
(04/24/2013) [-]
so no furry porn?
#4 to #3 - ohhitheree
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(04/24/2013) [-]
No, the real SCP 682 is a freak reptile that has a hate for all life, is nearly impossible to kill, and can talk. Every attempt to kill him has failed, and they have tried many times. They put him in a room with another SCP, SCP 173. SCP 173 is more or less a weeping angel, only much faster and very ugly. When they put him in a room with 173, he stared at it for six hours straight. Then they poked out his eyes, so he grew new ones, a ton of them.
#11 - notapancake
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(04/25/2013) [-]
This is SCP 682

Are you sure now it's realy wort it?
User avatar #12 to #11 - rgmayhem
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/25/2013) [-]
If you want to be eaten...
Yes.
User avatar #16 to #11 - aarkthedragon [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/26/2013) [-]
Thats 682 when its damaged enough to handel...how do we know it doesn't look like a sexy bitch normally?
User avatar #13 - arziben
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(04/25/2013) [-]
www.scp-wiki.net/main

SCP 682 is the worst peace of **** you could step upon, it indirectly destroyed a whole SCP facility when they managed to find a weapon against it
User avatar #14 to #13 - mayormilkman
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/25/2013) [-]
There's some others I'm more scared of. 682 is mainly just hard to contain.
User avatar #15 to #14 - arziben
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/26/2013) [-]
yes I might have overreacted

even SCP-173 isn't the worse
User avatar #17 to #15 - vasilyzaytsev **User deleted account**
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/05/2013) [-]
like scp-87?
User avatar #7 - mayormilkman
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/25/2013) [-]
... or have read the article on the SCP Foundation wiki.
User avatar #8 - novagodx
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/25/2013) [-]
WTF THAT HAD NO FURRY AT ALL, IT was scary and ****
#10 - Turtleboner
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#9 - rprol
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/25/2013) [-]
**** you OP. That's possibly the worst one of all of them.
#5 - anon id: 49ca4238
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/24/2013) [-]
WHERE'S THE FUNNY?!?!
User avatar #6 to #5 - aarkthedragon [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/24/2013) [-]
Read description.