That last paragraph is a correct argument by itself: the uniform limit of continuous functions is continuous; the pointwise limit [tex]f[/tex] of [tex](f_n)[/tex] is not a continuous function; therefore the convergence is not uniform.
(You need the observation that uniform convergence is strictly stronger than pointwise convergence, that is, if a sequence of functions converges uniformly then its uniform limit is its pointwise limit. Your second to last paragraph betrays some confusion on this point: [tex](f_n)[/tex] cannot possibly converge uniformly to [tex]g(x) = 0[/tex], because it does not even converge pointwise to this function.)
You can also produce a correct argument by writing out the epsilonics in detail, a bit more carefully than you do in your second to last paragraph. That would go something like this: I claim the convergence of [tex](f_n)[/tex] to its pointwise limit [tex]f(x) = 0[/tex] for [tex]x \in [0,1)[/tex], [tex]f(1) = 1[/tex], is not uniform. Let [tex]\epsilon = \textstyle\frac12[/tex]. Then for any fixed natural number [tex]N[/tex], there is [tex]n > N[/tex] and [tex]x_0 \in [0,1)[/tex] so that [tex]f_n(x_0) > \textstyle\frac12[/tex] (on a homework set I was grading, I would expect a student who took this tack to compute explicitly [tex]n[/tex] and [tex]x_0[/tex] given [tex]N[/tex]). Therefore there is no [tex]N[/tex] so that [tex]|f_n(x) - f(x)| < \textstyle\frac12[/tex] for all [tex]x\in[0,1], n > N[/tex], and [tex](f_n)[/tex] does not converge uniformly to [tex]f[/tex].
Obviously the argument which uses the concept of continuity is easier! However, the explicit epsilonic argument proves the slightly stronger statement that the restrictions of [tex]f_n[/tex] to [tex][0,1)[/tex] do not converge uniformly to zero on [tex][0,1)[/tex], which you can't prove by complaining that the limit isn't continuous -- it is.