Evangeline d'Arcy
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.01.20 03:14:00 -
[1]
Originally by: Nogard Ekin Localizers don't play a game and put the text live into it, neither do they get screenshots of anything, that they fit with translations. They might get a bunch of strings in a document without any connection, the best indicator they usually have is a so called string-ID, which in itself is very cryptic.
You laugh and complain about the translations "How could they put this and that there". The thing is, they don't have one string that reads for example "Copy" they probably have 3 or 4, or in a game as big as the EVE universe it might even be 10. There is most likely no indication whatsoever where this string will be used; clearly in some kind of user interface, but the translator has to decide between the verb (for some words even the adjective or tenses) and the noun for German EVERY SINGLE TIME, the same goes for imperative or infinitive of a verb. Of course that's a source of mistakes.
And, frankly, I cannot imagine why translation work is still done this way. Having spent quite some times translating reviews, interviews etc. for a music magazine myself, it became painfully clear, moreso than it had been before, that context arguably is the single most important aspect when it comes to translating. Without context, everything degrades into guesswork, with equally amusing and horrifying results. This might be how things are "done" (considering some of the translations this process produces) in the software industry, but that doesn't make it acceptable. Half-hearted efforts are no good.
Quote: By the way, if those translators are so horribly bad as most of you tell here, why hasn't anyone mentioned any mistakes outside the user interfaces?
This one's easy, actually:- UI mistakes are by their very nature the most obvious, simply because every player is exposed to the UI all the time.
- The descriptions of ships, modules etc., particularly the "flavour" parts, on the other hand, are rarely paid any attention to by most non-newbie players. When was the last time you read the description of the Rupture, for example?
- Translation mistakes outside the UI are mostly "trivial" insofar as they are of a non-idiomatic nature, rather than actively confusing the user, or simply inconsistent. (E.g. "optimale Reichweite mittlerer Hybridwaffentnrme" on the Eagle, "Energiespeicherverbrauch mittlerer Energiewaffen" on the Maller and "Energiespeicherverbrauch gro¯er Energiewaffen-Geschntztnrme" on the Armageddon.)
There are lots of actual mistakes in ship/item descriptions, though. For example, "the Cyclone was created to meet the increasing demand for a vessel capable of providing muscle for frigate detachments" is not at all the same as "die Cyclone wurde entwickelt, um der steigenden Nachfrage nach einem Schiff nachzukommen, das Fregatten bekSmpfen kann". The Malediction and Caracal both grant bonuses to "Raketenschaden", even though the bonuses are, respectively, only to rockets and to missiles. Or, if you take a look at the descriptions of heavy interdictors, "die hohe Kraft von Unterbrechern" is not a correct translation of "the trapping power of interdictors". "According to Professor Oggand Viftuin" shouldn't be translated as "GemS¯ Professor Oggand Viftuin". The consistency with which "cynosural" is misspelled as "cynosaural" is downright impressive. "99% Bonus aufgrund von Reduzierung des CPU-Verbrauchs fnr Siege Module" isn't quite right, simply put. Then there's "nbertrafen sich die Ingenieure des Kaiserreichs bei der Erstellung des wohl widerstandsfShigsten Dreadnoughts, das besteht, selbst", which sounds incredibly awkward (there's the non-idiomatic thing again), to say the least. Then there are a number of "das/dass" mistakes, too, which hardly encourage confidence in the translators.
The list goes on. It's not just the UI that has numerous translation issues. However, they are the most glaring and the most likely to affect gameplay.
_________________________
|