Translation, Localisation, and Jules Verne.

[Kalikin]

First off - great thread, OP. I'm really glad that this topic of translation as it concerns videogames has started to get widespread traction, even if I'm left wanting as to the quality of a lot of the discussion. Like so many topics, being able to talk intelligently about this requires a broader set of competencies, one of which is most certainly reaching a high proficiency in both source and target languages. For people in this thread who are interested in the topic of translation and would like to learn a little bit about translation theory, two of the most important resources to read are the works of Lawrence Venuti, who, while I have major issues with him, is a prominent figure around the ethics of translation, and Minako O'Hagan, who works in translation of new media, including videogames.

... Localisation it the deliberate and planned attempt to change works for the local market...

I'd just like to make a quick correction here. What you're describing is "just" translation. "Localisation" is a software development term for making local versions of software packages. It's different from translating prose or poetry in that software uncontroversially has a function that the user needs to be able to fulfill, so the translation strategy prioritises ease of use for a specific market. It also refers to software-specific problems that arise during the process, like having to translate around size limits for text strings (both screen real estate and data limit concerns).

The fact that videogame translation gets lumped in with localisation is partly because videogames ARE software, and in fact do need to take some cues from localisation practice, especially when it comes to Japanese-to-English translation, as Japanese needs less space to say the same general thing.

Can you point out a more specific example of a game that did this? I'm legitimately curious.

I heard that Persona did this in some places, and I know that there were some subtle errors in Bloodborne.

Persona 1 (PS1) was horrendous for this. The dopey dropout stereotype character got changed into a black guy, no doubt to convert the stereotype into the "black thug" stereotype (note this character happens to be carrying an axe around at the start of the game, where all the other characters are fighting with mop handles when things turn to shit).
As someone else said, Ace Attourney is a straight-up setting conversion, and all the characters have different names, which is actually quite rare nowadays.

In fact, it's quite rare for large portions of games to be added to or rewritten on the level of the Verne example in the OP, it's more about making minute information align with the local culture's preconceptions about things, whether that's "how the world works," or, "how people interact," or what they think they know about the source culture, in the case of JP-ENG game translations. I'm probably much more extreme than most people when it comes to meddling in translation, as I believe that games and other media are some of the primary ways that we can come into contact with other cultures - so instead of translators pandering to the audience's preconceived beliefs about another place because they "won't understand," I prefer a more honest representation that helps people understand through exposure. I'll keep myself to a couple of examples to keep the size of this post down:

If you've played Persona 4, you'll know that the translation "retained" all of the Japanese honourifics (-san, -kun appended to the end of names, etc). Except, the way the honourifics are used isn't how they're used in the original version, and if you play the two versions side-by-side it's clear they've been reintroduced for "Japanese flavour," to appeal to the likely audience of the game. This game has a LOT of translation choices like this.

In Ni no Kuni, at the start of the game the young main character is kind of being bullied on an older boy who's supposed to be his friend, and it looks like an abusive relationship. In the original version, it's clear the two characters are mutual conspirators on equal footing. Also, the main character's nice Japanese bow has been changed into a Western one, so as not to send mixed messages.

In FFXIII: Lightning Returns, the English translation tries REALLY hard to make a connection between the primary deity of the game and the Christian deity by doing things like editing out references to other deities and using key theological words where they don't appear in the original.

Hyperdimension Neptunia Re;Birth 1 is made more sexual (because the Japanese are perverts, right!?) At the start there's a scene with a character trying to bandage the main character. It's accompanied by a sexy graphic, but in the Japanese version the voice work has the main character being strangled, and eventually she passes out. The joke is that the nurse is incompetent. In the English version she moans a lot and climaxes. The game also strips out a lot of Japanese references and replaces them with OTHER Japanese references international audiences are more likely to get. Or, sometimes just for the hell of it - the opening joke is that Neptune's in the dark and addressing the player about what she might step on. In the Japanese version she warns she might step on your collector's edition merch. In the English version that's changed to anime figures.

Okay, I think that's enough. We all get the point.

 

[Something Amyss]

Oh heh sorry thought they meant the OP

I can see the grounds for confusion. Most of the time, saying "he" rules me out. In fairness, though, it's not like my username inherently says "hey, I'm a girl." Or even "hey, I was dorky enough to squeeze my name into my username!"

I suppose I was operating under the assumption that the OP was actually telling the truth about the Verne controversy being much larger than say the Fire Emblem one, but upon a very basic search, you seem to be right, outside of academic circles, the public doesn't really care much about what happened to Verne either. In giving the OP the benefit of the doubt, he could be referring to how more people are likely defend the changes to games rather than the Verne stories, although we could simply argue that as a function of time and scope, it makes the two cases nearly impossible to compare on any reasonable level. I could see the idea holding merit, that more people will defend Ace Attorney's localization over what was done to verne's works, but my answer would be largely the same.

People are not going to invoke auteur theory as often when dealing with a product created by a team commissioned and developed through committee by a private company, not that the product isn't art or not valuable as an artistic statement, but that the waters are muddied by the fact that the art is created and controlled by a group that will consent to changing that art to appeal to the masses. The debate around changes to Vernes work would draw different conclusions if he had specifically hired English translators and then been satisfied with the changes in the final product. This gets even more complicated when we realize that there is no single creator for most video games, so who's vision do we need to protect? The publisher? The developer? The individual staff within the development company?

I think it's healthy for people to critically look at localizations versus the original product, despite an overabundance of hyperbole, but I also get entirely why people will defend one and not the other. There's plenty of other reasons too, I guess, to sum up my point, I just think the OP is trying to compare two very different situations, those differences having little to do with video games artistic merit as a medium.

Well, one of the major differences is that we're talking about academia and its response to the alterations made to something that is considered an art form. That's the only reason there's any real outcry in the first place. The people around here crying "censorship" at localisations, OP included, also cast stones at people who attempt to evaluate gaming as a critical media. I do think this is important, because it's the entire context under which this comes into question. Novels actually used to be a lot like video games. They would rot your brains. They had no artistic merit. They were pop culture ephemera. However, now we have a bunch of people complaining about any sort of narrative criticism, even to the point of demanding technical specs and shit you could pull off the back of a box as "reviews."

Imagine if Verne or Melville were weighed based on the quality and weight of their paper, or the font face chosen. Now imagine that the novel "enthusiast" was the one demanding that. I think we'd have a much different reaction to the medium today had these been the ground rules laid out by the audience.

Game "enthusiasts" have spent the last several years demanding that games be treated like consumer products, not art. Bad reviews hurt developers and that's bad because...I don't know, developers shouldn't be "hurt" by being called out for the quality of their products unless they meet our arbitrary often arbitrary and contradictory standards.

And after hearing years of this stuff which would exclude the academic and artistic, I'm being told that I should be angered and outraged by that which was said to be a consumer product being treated as...a consumer product. From the same people. And now, I'm specifically being asked to care that games aren't held to the standards that these people have been actively fighting that entire time. Well, not just me. Everyone who's been yelled at and mocked and derided for the last several years for...basically holding consistent opinions, rather than throwing out words like "objective" or "ethical" or "consumer" when they are convenient and only then.

Really, you can find many of these people fighting for games to be treated as art right up until about 2011. Then, you see a shift and dropoff in that argument in favou of the objective review, the claims of consumer products, etc. Then it was games are a product/games are a hobby, then it was, well, if I go further, there will be a very obvious derailment incoming.

What's more is that this isn't really an objection to any one standard of censorship as a whole. There's a character in one of the recent Final Fantasy games who was covered up. Strangely, when a male character is covered up, or a trans character altered, it's not "censorship." It only comes up when it's the inability to pet underage girls, or when half a second of underage teen panty shots are removed that it becomes censorship.

All of this is absolutely relevant when the same people who did this ask why it's okay when it happens to video games. Because they set a standard for what video games are and aren't, and change it when it becomes inconvenient. Video games are a consumer product when people I don't like criticise them, but they're comparable to Jules Verne when I have an issue. Companies should listen to the consumer market. But if that consumer market isn't me, they're censorsing. We will use the loosest definition of censorship possible to explain why any change we don't personally like is censorship, but support changes which benefit us. And then we will wonder why people don't regard the medium seriously, even though we told them not to back when we were always at war with Eastasia. but now that we've always been at war with Eurasia, you must change with us, because...objectivity?

But then, how can we even hope to have criticism when a game scoring "too high" or "too low" can cause a shitstorm in our community? When people will demand a reviewer be fired for the travesty that is giving a 9/10 (hating a game)? There's a decided irony in using Arthur Evans' critique of the Verne translations, because the community--and the people specifically complaining about censorship--have decided such things have no place in gaming media. At least, not when it disagrees with them.

And it's no accident that "the usual suspects" has already been used in this thread, because really, it's not about the principles of censorship or whatever. It's about "us" vs "them." Hell, there weren't even complaints about this sort of thing until the evil SJW bogeyman was mentioned. DOAX wasn't getting ported in August? No major outcry. In fact, they couldn't even get five thousand signatures on a petition. DOAX still not getting ported a few months later, but now we can blame SJws? Now it's time to throw down. There's a cottage industry around playing to the perpetually offended. All you really have to do is say "the game THEY don't want you to have," and people will literally be all "shut up and take my money." It's not about merit or principle, but about not letting THEM win.

Whoever they are, because it's really unclear. It appears that everyone is a secret SJW/cultural marxist.

This is an "all or nothing" view on an issue where two elements (at least two) are always going to be at odds. "Freeze Peach" and the right to self-determination are not things you can pass-fail on a flowchart.

But that's exactly what this comes down to.

 

[Areloch]

... Localisation it the deliberate and planned attempt to change works for the local market...

I'd just like to make a quick correction here. What you're describing is "just" translation. "Localisation" is a software development term for making local versions of software packages. It's different from translating prose or poetry in that software uncontroversially has a function that the user needs to be able to fulfill, so the translation strategy prioritises ease of use for a specific market. It also refers to software-specific problems that arise during the process, like having to translate around size limits for text strings (both screen real estate and data limit concerns).

The fact that videogame translation gets lumped in with localisation is partly because videogames ARE software, and in fact do need to take some cues from localisation practice, especially when it comes to Japanese-to-English translation, as Japanese needs less space to say the same general thing.

I'd say this isn't entirely accurate, because I've seen the term 'localization' used in context of anime and the like too.
It's what people called it when you had just travesties like the 4kids One Piece 'translation':

(Lacking a better video that shows the differences between the 4kids and the regular)

Or when you get Brock from pokemon talking about how much he 'loves donuts' while holding rice balls:


This is the sort of thing people tend to attribute to 'localization' in media compared to software. It's taking a thing of media and changing stuff to "fit" the new locale. "Back in the day" it may have sort of made sense because people weren't familiar with japan, so it was easier to get people invested when it's more familar.

However, that's not at all an issue anymore. If you have a character talk about eating rice balls, people know what's going on, etc. So people 'taking liberties' and doing stuff like that, or inexplicably moving Phonex Wright to San Fransisco(while everything still looks Japanese), it serves no pragmatic purpose and is a waste of time, effort, money and oftentimes isn't really what people wanted.

That's a lot of the reason why people are so against these kinds of 'corrections' being made when we hear about them, and it's because it often ranges from pointless changes like the donuts thing, to 'We decided this was offensive, so we changed it like One Piece's guns being changed to super-soakers' or other things of the sort.

I know for a fact if I bought a piece of media, I'd kinda like the original piece retained as much as possible without some random other 3rd party trying to give me the "real" experience which isn't at all what the original creator made. This sorta junk REALLY rubs me the wrong way when the translators take it upon themselves to "fix" the media, rather than just translating the language and giving it over to me to let me make my own decisions on it.

 

[Kalikin]

... Localisation it the deliberate and planned attempt to change works for the local market...

I'd just like to make a quick correction here. What you're describing is "just" translation. "Localisation" is a software development term for making local versions of software packages. It's different from translating prose or poetry in that software uncontroversially has a function that the user needs to be able to fulfill, so the translation strategy prioritises ease of use for a specific market. It also refers to software-specific problems that arise during the process, like having to translate around size limits for text strings (both screen real estate and data limit concerns).

The fact that videogame translation gets lumped in with localisation is partly because videogames ARE software, and in fact do need to take some cues from localisation practice, especially when it comes to Japanese-to-English translation, as Japanese needs less space to say the same general thing.

...I'd say this isn't entirely accurate, because I've seen the term 'localization' used in context of anime and the like too...

I realise I sound very condescending when I say this, but that's what's called a folk definition, where I'm drawing my definition from academic translation studies. I want to maintain the importance of the distinction because there are significant constraints on how software is able to be translated over and above the inherent difficulties of regular translation, and separate from an individual translator's desire to meddle with the original.

 

[Areloch]

... Localisation it the deliberate and planned attempt to change works for the local market...

I'd just like to make a quick correction here. What you're describing is "just" translation. "Localisation" is a software development term for making local versions of software packages. It's different from translating prose or poetry in that software uncontroversially has a function that the user needs to be able to fulfill, so the translation strategy prioritises ease of use for a specific market. It also refers to software-specific problems that arise during the process, like having to translate around size limits for text strings (both screen real estate and data limit concerns).

The fact that videogame translation gets lumped in with localisation is partly because videogames ARE software, and in fact do need to take some cues from localisation practice, especially when it comes to Japanese-to-English translation, as Japanese needs less space to say the same general thing.

...I'd say this isn't entirely accurate, because I've seen the term 'localization' used in context of anime and the like too...

I realise I sound very condescending when I say this, but that's what's called a folk definition, where I'm drawing my definition from academic translation studies. I want to maintain the importance of the distinction because there are significant constraints on how software is able to be translated over and above the inherent difficulties of regular translation, and separate from an individual translator's desire to meddle with the original.

Nah, I don't think that's being condescending. It's a fair point. (I'm a programmer, so I know the pain of having to port stuff around and all the stupid hoops that goes with it)

Does feel like there should be a distinction between a translation and "I'll fix this" sorts of translations though. Aware of any terms that may suffice?

 

[Something Amyss]

I realise I sound very condescending when I say this, but that's what's called a folk definition, where I'm drawing my definition from academic translation studies. I want to maintain the importance of the distinction because there are significant constraints on how software is able to be translated over and above the inherent difficulties of regular translation, and separate from an individual translator's desire to meddle with the original.

This is why it's important to define our terms, but at the same time, the use of localisation in this thread is the colloquial version, and I would argue it's a distraction to bring up the academic version at all. They are talking about the adaptation of media to suit a certain market, which may include practical, moral, legal or cultural standards. They could call this localisation or Hufflepuff, as long as the terminology is consistent.

 

[Kalikin]

Nah, I don't think that's being condescending. It's a fair point. (I'm a programmer, so I know the pain of having to port stuff around and all the stupid hoops that goes with it)

Does feel like there should be a distinction between a translation and "I'll fix this" sorts of translations though. Aware of any terms that may suffice?

They're really just referred to as "translations," because this practice is common for all media as well (I've read some translation scholars who've remarked that it is the predominant practice for all translation in the Western world). You can take the Novel 99 Francs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99_Francs) as one example of a book that had its location changed, along with all the cultural references. Nowadays scholars like to use the terms "Domestication" and "Foreignisation" to describe the two poles of translation strategy, though.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Can you point out a more specific example of a game that did this? I'm legitimately curious.

I heard that Persona did this in some places, and I know that there were some subtle errors in Bloodborne.

The entire Ace Attorney series was SUBSTANTIALLY Americanized for a western audience. Pretty sure the content they ripped out of the new Fire Emblem counts too.

Spoiler: Eat your hamburgers, Apollo

OT: Some things just don't translate, like puns. However when you start removing chapters or dialogue for no good reason is where it gets bad. But don't think books are immune in more modern times. A Clockwork Orange had a whole chapter removed when it crossed the Atlantic :/

 

[Kalikin]

I realise I sound very condescending when I say this, but that's what's called a folk definition, where I'm drawing my definition from academic translation studies. I want to maintain the importance of the distinction because there are significant constraints on how software is able to be translated over and above the inherent difficulties of regular translation, and separate from an individual translator's desire to meddle with the original.

This is why it's important to define our terms, but at the same time, the use of localisation in this thread is the colloquial version, and I would argue it's a distraction to bring up the academic version at all. They are talking about the adaptation of media to suit a certain market, which may include practical, moral, legal or cultural standards. They could call this localisation or Hufflepuff, as long as the terminology is consistent.

I would have agreed with you prior to game localisation becoming the "it" topic, but the most common definition of "localisation" I see used nowadays is "non-literal translation." This is a problem because it frames people expressing concerns about localisation practices as people wanting literal translations. People can't talk intelligently about these issues unless everyone's clear on what is a language-specific or medium-specific problem, and what is a symptom of a particular translation strategy. For instance, I see people talking about the untranslatability of puns being the same category of problem as removing gameplay systems, or heavily stylising dialogue, because the folk definition puts them in the same category.

 

[Albino Boo]

No you are missing the point. Localisation it the deliberate and planned attempt to change works for the local market. What has happening with Jules Verne was equivalent of people selling scanned version of the latest Harry Potter novel when it came out. The point was to make money quickly not to create a quality product. If you made selling fake rolexes legal would you see more or less of them. There is no linkage with the past because of changes to the copyright laws don't make get rich quick translations the standard edition of a major international author. The google translate version of Bonfire of the Vanities is not the one on sale in French bookshops and never will be. So my comment was not cynical because the usual suspects jumped to the usual conclusion without any understanding or considerations of the fact the past is different from the present for the reasons that I clearly stated.

Why it happened might be different, and yeah the market situation is very different now than it was in the 19th century, but regardless of that the conclusion has sadly not changed; bad translations are still everywhere. Whether that's in literature, film, games or TV. Copyright protection hasn't really helped prevent that, it doesn't seem to guarantee a certain level of respect for the source material.

Also, I've yet to see anyone mention anything related to progressiveness and blaming this on racism or something like that. So whoever those usual suspects are, I'm not seeing the usual conclusions posted just yet.

Lets look at the facts shall we. Is the works of John Paul Sartre on sale in the United States today done by google translate. Oh no it isn't. So guess what international copyright has stopped what happened to the works Jule Verne. Why bother with facts when you can just repeat the same opinion in multiple posts.

No you are missing the point. Localisation it the deliberate and planned attempt to change works for the local market.

Kind of like the bit in the OP about the stated intent?

OP then goes on to directly tie this to video games.

This may be difficult for you to understand but the reason why Jules Verne's works are different in America in get quick publishers doing the cheapest possible translation without paying the original writer money. If they did that today that with video games they would be called pirates not publishers, because the law changed. So there is no connection between the action of 19th century publishers and video game publishers of today. You do not see on the shelves multiple dubs of anime done by different companies with no payment connection to the original production. There is fundamental difference between picking one of 10 pirated version of a game and saying that's the official English release and the company the produced the original game producing the official English game. That does not stop bad translations but what its does stop is the pirated versions becoming the commercial version, which is what happened with Jule Verne. The is wrong when he tied to Jule Verne to video games of today because the legal environment prevents what happened in the 19th century happening now

 

[Cowabungaa]

snip

I think we've been talking past each other. It seems your main point is this:

That does not stop bad translations but what its does stop is the pirated versions becoming the commercial version, which is what happened with Jule Verne.

I agree with that. Thing is, as you say; it doesn't stop bad translations. And that's what the problem described by the OP boils down to. Pirated versions can sometimes even be better than the commercial one. For instance, it happens with anime sometimes with fansubs being better than the legal ones. Hence why I disagree that copyright law solves what in the end is the problem because I don't see the 'pirated' versions as such as the issue, but the fact that the translation sucked. That's because a legal, commercial version isn't necessarily better.

 

[Albino Boo]

snip

I think we've been talking past each other. It seems your main point is this:

That does not stop bad translations but what its does stop is the pirated versions becoming the commercial version, which is what happened with Jule Verne.

I agree with that. Thing is, as you say; it doesn't stop bad translations. And that's what the problem described by the OP boils down to. Pirated versions can sometimes even be better than the commercial one. For instance, it happens with anime sometimes with fansubs being better than the legal ones. Hence why I disagree that copyright law solves what in the end is the problem because I don't see the 'pirated' versions as such as the issue, but the fact that the translation sucked. That's because a legal, commercial version isn't necessarily better.

Jules Verne is irrelevant to today, it's not possible for what happened then to happen now. The reason why works to today get poor translations is that they have very limited markets and its done on the cheap and is edited to increase the size of the market. Perhaps the closest equivalent to Verne that's is current is Stieg Larsson's novels and they got a high end treatment because they are mass market product which sold in multiple languages. If you are interested in a minority subject you are going to have to accept that the thing that you enjoy is limited by the numbers that have a similar interest. The fandubs are labour of love and are not done for profit .

 

[Wrex Brogan]

...why is there this weird assumption that Localizations can't be poorly done? Both in that terrible GiD thread and in the OP here there seems to be a sense that Localizations can't be good or bad.

Like... it's people being paid to do something. Occasionally, people fuck that up, or the people paying to get the thing done go for the cheap, inexperienced options instead of the people who know how to do their job. Happens a lot in the art industry, really.

...while what happened to Jules Verne isn't quite repeatable with legitimate localization (shit like the pirated Pokemon 'translations' is more on the spot, since they're often translated incredibly poorly and sold without Nintendo's consent), if a localizer did a terrible job of it/developers hired cheap, inexperienced localizers, the fan reaction would be 'Well this is a shitty localization, who'd they pay to fuck this up', not 'well it's just localization'.

Because again, Localization is a job, and people can fuck it up. And people will then comment on them fucking it up.

 

[CaitSeith]

I think it's worth to remind that Jules Verne's work was in a genre that wasn't seen much as art at the time; but as entertainment: Science Fiction. Unlike other literary arts, the message and intellectual significance of Science Fiction is contained within the story itself, and the works tend to apply a clarity of language that lots of critics used to take as a "lack of artistic merit".

It will still take time for games to get their individual concepts respected the same way as with Science Fiction. But believe me when I tell you that in the NES and SNES times it used to be worse. Way worse.