Journalism and bias in the gaming industry.

[Malcador]

Says the person who holds the whole field in contempt, would probably not understand a word if I posted a quote from, say, Derrida, yet for some incomprehensible reason, still maintains the idea that he knows better what people mean when using a jargon he doesn't speak. The Dunning-Kruger effect is in full swing, it seems.

Ah, back to being a **** again, what a shock. The field in question is development right - this is a document for technically minded people. And if your English skills are so poor or perhaps you are just too dumb to pick it up, the teasing of Humanities fields is just that, teasing. While STEM is more useful to me, humanities people never fail to get upset and angsty over mocking their majors, so it's pretty good return.

Edited March 13, 2015 by Malcador

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

This is far more business related than ideology related. Nobody is telling anyone to change allegorical meaning. This is more, if your game includes being a butcher, in India you may want to change the beef to something else. Hardly self-censorship rather unless killing cows is core to your experience. Plus, IGDA isn't telling anyone they have to do this, it's just and article describing things you may want to keep in mind if you choose to localize your content. I'm not entirely sure what the big deal is.

 

Emphasis mine:

Be surgical: Make the most minimal change to the least amount of content. Only change what really must be changed in order to ensure distribution to the game’s target market. In the majority of cases with cultural issues, the resolution is a small, precise fix of a specific symbol, or word, or character design; it’s usually not a major issue such as the entire game’s premise (although this can occur).

They actually ARE saying that.

 

 

 

But what I'm not seeing is them saying is that culturalization should be done across the board in all cases. There are some premises where it's simply not possible; in these cases, you simply skip the whole process and resign yourself to not have any of the phat dollahz of the people who are offended by the premise. Or you decide to scrap the entire project and invest in something that has a wider market appeal, based on a detailed cost-benefit analysis of both courses.

 

 

 

 

 

 

...I'm honestly confused.

 

Is eating hot-dogs and bacon such an instrumental plot element in the Simpsons that the authorial vision is meaningfully harmed by their exclusion?

Not to the plot per se, but being a fat slob who eats and drinks in terrible ways is important to who Homer Simpson is.

 

 

 

But here's the point: subsisting only on a diet of donuts is also a textbook example of eating in terrible ways. The characterization is not harmed by the exclusion of hot dogs. Quite the opposite, actually: because in the targeted cultural environment, "eating hot dogs and bacon" signals something different than "eats and drinks in terrible ways", I think it can be argued that authorial intent is preserved by excluding those.

 

But it changes the fact that Homer will eat anything (and has in the show done things like ate leftover lard from a fryer) that he is, in essence, a glutton with no discrimination or self-control.

 

 

 

Well, in this case, you just have to decide what distorts the original authorial intent more. *shrug* Nuances are always lost, even when people from the same culture are viewing the same thing.

 

 

 

Says the person who holds the whole field in contempt, would probably not understand a word if I posted a quote from, say, Derrida, yet for some incomprehensible reason, still maintains the idea that he knows better what people mean when using a jargon he doesn't speak. The Dunning-Kruger effect is in full swing, it seems.

Ah, back to being a **** again, what a shock. The field in question is development right - this is a document for technically minded people. And if your English skills are so poor or perhaps you are just too dumb to pick it up, the teasing of Humanities fields is just that, teasing. While STEM is more useful to me, humanities people never fail to get upset and angsty over mocking their majors, so it's pretty good return.

 

 

 

My point still stands. You are utterly sure you're capable of discerning hidden motives from the text, but I think you lack enough familiarity with the jargon to pick out subtext. I don't think you have any more reason to be offended by me pointing this out than by me pointing out that you probably aren't also a skilled potter, or carpenter, or what-have-you. I'm honestly baffled by how hostile your response is.

Edited March 13, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Blarghagh]

 

This is far more business related than ideology related. Nobody is telling anyone to change allegorical meaning. This is more, if your game includes being a butcher, in India you may want to change the beef to something else. Hardly self-censorship rather unless killing cows is core to your experience. Plus, IGDA isn't telling anyone they have to do this, it's just and article describing things you may want to keep in mind if you choose to localize your content. I'm not entirely sure what the big deal is.

 

Emphasis mine:

Be surgical: Make the most minimal change to the least amount of content. Only change what really must be changed in order to ensure distribution to the game’s target market. In the majority of cases with cultural issues, the resolution is a small, precise fix of a specific symbol, or word, or character design; it’s usually not a major issue such as the entire game’s premise (although this can occur).

They actually ARE saying that.

 

Are you kidding? I know you to be an intelligent poster so I'm a bit surprised at this level of misreading or misunderstanding of a text.

 

No, they're not saying that. They are absolutely not saying that. First of all, they're talking in a business sense, regarding target market. Meaning a developer choice to make the change if they consider the target market to be important - they are completely able to not give a crap and release it anyway. This is all about changes they suggest you make if they want the game to fit in more with that target audience.

 

But more importantly, they suggest only making minimal changes, especially because it says cultural issues are very rarely major. About that, it solely states that it can occur that an entire game's premise could be considered offensive, but it does not state what the developer should do if this would occur. It only states what to do for minimal issues.

[Meshugger]

 

 

Personal attack now? Try to be funnier next time.

 

 

I don't think my opinion that the idea of "the western gaming industry is bad because the industry is trying to appease all the feelings of cultures nobody cares about" is literally the most insanely idiotic thing I've heard today is even debatable, much less "constitutes as a personal attack".

 

 

(error, maximum quotes exceed. Well, shucks).

 

If my opinion is the most insanely idiotic, then you truly live in an ivory tower :D

 

Point being, Homer is an american that goes to church, loves bacon, beer and doughnuts and is an incredible slob. While a translation might change how he expresses his love for Duff beer, the culturalization removes it completely. **** that kind of authoritarian ****.

[Meshugger]

 

 

This is far more business related than ideology related. Nobody is telling anyone to change allegorical meaning. This is more, if your game includes being a butcher, in India you may want to change the beef to something else. Hardly self-censorship rather unless killing cows is core to your experience. Plus, IGDA isn't telling anyone they have to do this, it's just and article describing things you may want to keep in mind if you choose to localize your content. I'm not entirely sure what the big deal is.

 

Emphasis mine:

Be surgical: Make the most minimal change to the least amount of content. Only change what really must be changed in order to ensure distribution to the game’s target market. In the majority of cases with cultural issues, the resolution is a small, precise fix of a specific symbol, or word, or character design; it’s usually not a major issue such as the entire game’s premise (although this can occur).

They actually ARE saying that.

 

Are you kidding? I know you to be an intelligent poster so I'm a bit surprised at this level of misreading or misunderstanding of a text.

 

No, they're not saying that. They are absolutely not saying that. First of all, they're talking in a business sense, regarding target market. Meaning a developer choice to make the change if they consider the target market to be important - they are completely able to not give a crap and release it anyway. This is all about changes they suggest you make if they want the game to fit in more with that target audience.

 

But more importantly, they suggest only making minimal changes, especially because it says cultural issues are very rarely major. About that, it solely states that it can occur that an entire game's premise could be considered offensive, but it does not state what the developer should do if this would occur. It only states what to do for minimal issues.

 

 

IGDA had the business sense to add gg_autoblocker to its twitter account and blocked their own members. So excuse me for being suspicious about their suggestions and senses.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

 

Personal attack now? Try to be funnier next time.

 

 

I don't think my opinion that the idea of "the western gaming industry is bad because the industry is trying to appease all the feelings of cultures nobody cares about" is literally the most insanely idiotic thing I've heard today is even debatable, much less "constitutes as a personal attack".

 

 

(error, maximum quotes exceed. Well, shucks).

 

If my opinion is the most insanely idiotic, then you truly live in an ivory tower :D

 

 

Today's most insanely idiotic

 

But really, I think gaming is bland because the publishers do everything in their power to only cater to a single, very specific subsegment of gamers they think holds the largest purchasing power. This is literally the direct opposite of what you think is the reason for the same phenomena.

 

Since no studies I know of support either point, I'm happy to agree to disagree on the matter.

[Malcador]

My point still stands. You are utterly sure you're capable of discerning hidden motives from the text, but I think you lack enough familiarity with the jargon to pick out subtext. I don't think you have any more reason to be offended by me pointing this out than by me pointing out that you probably aren't also a skilled potter, or carpenter, or what-have-you. I'm honestly baffled by how hostile your response is.

This is a rich comment, but I guess it will work well to avoid the mods here.  Considering the source of all this, suspecting them of having a point they are beating around the bush of, doesn't require much familiarity with the jargon on display here - which isn't really anything from your field, it's a document for developers, or some excuse for these days (Visual Programming, yay..)

 

Also, related to IGDA and reading anything by Derek Smart is worth a laugh - http://pastebin.com/3vmdTvHK

Edited March 13, 2015 by Malcador

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Considering the source of all this, suspecting them of having a point they are beating around the bush of, doesn't require much familiarity with the jargon on display here

 

 

True, but considering the source of all this, it's also quite possible that you're primed to see things that simply aren't there.

 

isn't really anything from your field

 

My field being medicine, it's quite obviously not

[Malcador]

 

Considering the source of all this, suspecting them of having a point they are beating around the bush of, doesn't require much familiarity with the jargon on display here

True, but considering the source of all this, it's also quite possible that you're primed to see things that simply aren't there.

 

 

isn't really anything from your field

 

My field being medicine, it's quite obviously not

 

Well, hence suspicion rather than knowing - the lack of a guarantee is implicit, right ?

Edited March 13, 2015 by Malcador

[Blarghagh]

 

 

 

This is far more business related than ideology related. Nobody is telling anyone to change allegorical meaning. This is more, if your game includes being a butcher, in India you may want to change the beef to something else. Hardly self-censorship rather unless killing cows is core to your experience. Plus, IGDA isn't telling anyone they have to do this, it's just and article describing things you may want to keep in mind if you choose to localize your content. I'm not entirely sure what the big deal is.

 

Emphasis mine:

Be surgical: Make the most minimal change to the least amount of content. Only change what really must be changed in order to ensure distribution to the game’s target market. In the majority of cases with cultural issues, the resolution is a small, precise fix of a specific symbol, or word, or character design; it’s usually not a major issue such as the entire game’s premise (although this can occur).

They actually ARE saying that.

 

Are you kidding? I know you to be an intelligent poster so I'm a bit surprised at this level of misreading or misunderstanding of a text.

 

No, they're not saying that. They are absolutely not saying that. First of all, they're talking in a business sense, regarding target market. Meaning a developer choice to make the change if they consider the target market to be important - they are completely able to not give a crap and release it anyway. This is all about changes they suggest you make if they want the game to fit in more with that target audience.

 

But more importantly, they suggest only making minimal changes, especially because it says cultural issues are very rarely major. About that, it solely states that it can occur that an entire game's premise could be considered offensive, but it does not state what the developer should do if this would occur. It only states what to do for minimal issues.

 

 

IGDA had the business sense to add gg_autoblocker to its twitter account and blocked their own members. So excuse me for being suspicious about their suggestions and senses.

 

 

 

So this is a grudge rather than having actual issue with the content then?

 

Listen, I don't like the IGDA any more than you do. In fact, I met one of the founders and the guy is a complete and utter tophat wearing joke of a man who can't wait to shove his opinions down your throat. I believe I described him as "he should be wearing a sign that says 'come hither women, I will protect you as you are too weak to do it yourself'". But being suspicious and and attacking specific pieces of output for issues that simply do not exist in said output just makes you look like a paranoid conspiracy nut.

 

It's not like all the IGDA does is "SJW all over the place" - they've been releasing resources for developers for a long time now and most of their output is useful, and not everybody in the IGDA supports their #GamerGate stance (such as their South American representative who got put on the autoblocker).

 

What you're doing right now? That's guilt by association right there, that thing that everyone else uses to paint you and me as harassers. You can't pretend to be better than these jerks if you're not actually better.

Edited March 13, 2015 by TrueNeutral
quote system being a jerk

[Amentep]

But what I'm not seeing is them saying is that culturalization should be done across the board in all cases. There are some premises where it's simply not possible; in these cases, you simply skip the whole process and resign yourself to not have any of the phat dollahz of the people who are offended by the premise. Or you decide to scrap the entire project and invest in something that has a wider market appeal, based on a detailed cost-benefit analysis of both courses.

 

Perhaps, but the idea that you need to document decisions if someone wants to complain that it was culturally insensitive...?

 

Does anyone tell a writer to document why they wrote something in case someone complains?¹ Is it just because people think books are irrelevant?

 

No, they're not saying that. They are absolutely not saying that. First of all, they're talking in a business sense, regarding target market. Meaning a developer choice to make the change if they consider the target market to be important - they are completely able to not give a crap and release it anyway. This is all about changes they suggest you make if they want the game to fit in more with that target audience.

 

This may be a knee jerk reaction to this - BUT it is IMO very important for creative endevors to not be shackled by things other than the vision of the creator.

 

No one is sitting there telling Stephen King (or even Kingsley Stephens of Pebblebrook Missouri)² when writing his novel he needs to be culturally sensitive. You just don't think about that with literature (even "low" literature). Why do we accept it with games? Its not like bookselling isn't a business.

 

I dunno, this just bugs the **** out of me, I admit. Maybe its a wrong impression, but man reading that document really did feel like reading a big "We're not telling you how to make a game...but let us tell you how you should make your game."

 

¹Its not like any of the offended cared why Salman Rushdie wrote the SATANIC VERSES back when the fatwa was issued on him.

 

²You could make an argument that the editor serves this function; maybe its even true.  And of course the publisher is not under an obligation to publish a work just because it exists.  But this conceptually feels very different to me than what this document suggests.

Edited March 13, 2015 by Amentep

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

But what I'm not seeing is them saying is that culturalization should be done across the board in all cases. There are some premises where it's simply not possible; in these cases, you simply skip the whole process and resign yourself to not have any of the phat dollahz of the people who are offended by the premise. Or you decide to scrap the entire project and invest in something that has a wider market appeal, based on a detailed cost-benefit analysis of both courses.

 

Perhaps, but the idea that you need to document decisions if someone wants to complain that it was culturally insensitive...?

 

 

It's advice. Sound advice, at that (documenting decision-making processes both creates accountability and might save your ass down the line when that decision is contested by somebody with much lesser insight into the entirety of the issue). Nobody said you need to do it.

[Blarghagh]

 

But what I'm not seeing is them saying is that culturalization should be done across the board in all cases. There are some premises where it's simply not possible; in these cases, you simply skip the whole process and resign yourself to not have any of the phat dollahz of the people who are offended by the premise. Or you decide to scrap the entire project and invest in something that has a wider market appeal, based on a detailed cost-benefit analysis of both courses.

 

Perhaps, but the idea that you need to document decisions if someone wants to complain that it was culturally insensitive...?

 

Does anyone tell a writer to document why they wrote something in case someone complains?¹ Is it just because people think books are irrelevant?

 

No, they're not saying that. They are absolutely not saying that. First of all, they're talking in a business sense, regarding target market. Meaning a developer choice to make the change if they consider the target market to be important - they are completely able to not give a crap and release it anyway. This is all about changes they suggest you make if they want the game to fit in more with that target audience.

 

This may be a knee jerk reaction to this - BUT it is IMO very important for creative endevors to not be shackled by things other than the vision of the creator.

 

No one is sitting there telling Stephen King (or even Kingsley Stephens of Pebblebrook Missouri)² when writing his novel he needs to be culturally sensitive. You just don't think about that with literature (even "low" literature). Why do we accept it with games? Its not like bookselling isn't a business.

 

I dunno, this just bugs the **** out of me, I admit. Maybe its a wrong impression, but man reading that document really did feel like reading a big "We're not telling you how to make a game...but let us tell you how you should make your game."

 

¹Its not like any of the offended cared why Salman Rushdie wrote the SATANIC VERSES back when the fatwa was issued on him.

 

²You could make an argument that the editor serves this function; maybe its even true.  And of course the publisher is not under an obligation to publish a work just because it exists.  But this conceptually feels very different to me than what this document suggests.

 

 

This isn't about how to make your game. This is about localization. The game you've made for your core audience remains the same, you're making a version fit for another territory. The Japanese have been doing this for decades. You'll have a Japanese version and a US version. An example would be that they took the slot machines out of the American releases of new Pokémon games - because Americans don't want gambling in their games. It's a tiny mini-game, it was replaced with another tiny mini-game. How does that change the core experience of the game? And as stated, this is simply advice. No one is obligated to follow it.

 

Also, as someone who has read a handful of books in two languages, I can tell you that they very much do localize books further than translation, and that's only from American to European sensibilities.

 

EDIT: And in game development, pretty much every decision gets documented anyway.

Edited March 13, 2015 by TrueNeutral

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

 

This is far more business related than ideology related. Nobody is telling anyone to change allegorical meaning. This is more, if your game includes being a butcher, in India you may want to change the beef to something else. Hardly self-censorship rather unless killing cows is core to your experience. Plus, IGDA isn't telling anyone they have to do this, it's just and article describing things you may want to keep in mind if you choose to localize your content. I'm not entirely sure what the big deal is.

 

Emphasis mine:

Be surgical: Make the most minimal change to the least amount of content. Only change what really must be changed in order to ensure distribution to the game’s target market. In the majority of cases with cultural issues, the resolution is a small, precise fix of a specific symbol, or word, or character design; it’s usually not a major issue such as the entire game’s premise (although this can occur).

They actually ARE saying that.

 

Are you kidding? I know you to be an intelligent poster so I'm a bit surprised at this level of misreading or misunderstanding of a text.

 

No, they're not saying that. They are absolutely not saying that. First of all, they're talking in a business sense, regarding target market. Meaning a developer choice to make the change if they consider the target market to be important - they are completely able to not give a crap and release it anyway. This is all about changes they suggest you make if they want the game to fit in more with that target audience.

 

But more importantly, they suggest only making minimal changes, especially because it says cultural issues are very rarely major. About that, it solely states that it can occur that an entire game's premise could be considered offensive, but it does not state what the developer should do if this would occur. It only states what to do for minimal issues.

 

 

IGDA had the business sense to add gg_autoblocker to its twitter account and blocked their own members. So excuse me for being suspicious about their suggestions and senses.

 

 

 

So this is a grudge rather than having actual issue with the content then?

 

Listen, I don't like the IGDA any more than you do. In fact, I met one of the founders and the guy is a complete and utter tophat wearing joke of a man who can't wait to shove his opinions down your throat. I believe I described him as "he should be wearing a sign that says 'come hither women, I will protect you as you are too weak to do it yourself'". But being suspicious and and attacking specific pieces of output for issues that simply do not exist in said output just makes you look like a paranoid conspiracy nut.

 

It's not like all the IGDA does is "SJW all over the place" - they've been releasing resources for developers for a long time now and most of their output is useful, and not everybody in the IGDA supports their #GamerGate stance (such as their South American representative who got put on the autoblocker).

 

What you're doing right now? That's guilt by association right there, that thing that everyone else uses to paint you and me as harassers. You can't pretend to be better than these jerks if you're not actually better.

 

 

As i said earlier, this is not some random memo. It's from the executive director that has the trust of the board of directors. If she steps down, i will concede to your point.

[Meshugger]

"Localization":

 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

How does that change the core experience of the game?

Gambling in Pokemon was better than the Battle Mansion that replaced it. Having to grind through low-level battles for points is more tedious than buying a bunch of coins with excess cash.

[Amentep]

It's advice. Sound advice, at that (documenting decision-making processes both creates accountability and might save your ass down the line when that decision is contested by somebody with much lesser insight into the entirety of the issue). Nobody said you need to do it.

 

But - if someone actually is offended...will they actually care?

 

I mean if I, for example, were to provide documents indicating that GAME ELEMENT A is actually statistically very likely to exist in the setting of the Game.  And that GAME ELEMENT A is important to the story of the game, and therefore relevant to the experience created. And that after much consideration that we kept the element in knowing some people would be offended by it because the context really indicated we needed to keep it.

 

You think that would *matter* to the offended?  That they would stop their protests about the game, stop petitioning to have the sale of the game stopped because "Oh well, they explained it, we're all good"?

 

The only way to appease the offended would be to never do anything to offend them in the first place, yes?

 

This isn't about how to make your game. This is about localization.

I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation.

 

The effort of thinking outside our given cultural worldview often makes it difficult for a game designer in one locale to be aware of the issues that could cause problems in another locale. However, by considering at least the following four cultural variables that most often generate conflict between the game’s contextand local cultures, it is possible to reduce the potential for issues to arise:

That seems like a design level thought, this cannot exist solely at the time of localization.

[Blarghagh]

Gambling was replaced with Voltorb Flip? Battle Mansion is something different.

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is far more business related than ideology related. Nobody is telling anyone to change allegorical meaning. This is more, if your game includes being a butcher, in India you may want to change the beef to something else. Hardly self-censorship rather unless killing cows is core to your experience. Plus, IGDA isn't telling anyone they have to do this, it's just and article describing things you may want to keep in mind if you choose to localize your content. I'm not entirely sure what the big deal is.

 
Emphasis mine:

Be surgical: Make the most minimal change to the least amount of content. Only change what really must be changed in order to ensure distribution to the game’s target market. In the majority of cases with cultural issues, the resolution is a small, precise fix of a specific symbol, or word, or character design; it’s usually not a major issue such as the entire game’s premise (although this can occur).

They actually ARE saying that.

 

Are you kidding? I know you to be an intelligent poster so I'm a bit surprised at this level of misreading or misunderstanding of a text.

 

No, they're not saying that. They are absolutely not saying that. First of all, they're talking in a business sense, regarding target market. Meaning a developer choice to make the change if they consider the target market to be important - they are completely able to not give a crap and release it anyway. This is all about changes they suggest you make if they want the game to fit in more with that target audience.

 

But more importantly, they suggest only making minimal changes, especially because it says cultural issues are very rarely major. About that, it solely states that it can occur that an entire game's premise could be considered offensive, but it does not state what the developer should do if this would occur. It only states what to do for minimal issues.

 

 

IGDA had the business sense to add gg_autoblocker to its twitter account and blocked their own members. So excuse me for being suspicious about their suggestions and senses.

 

 

 

So this is a grudge rather than having actual issue with the content then?

 

Listen, I don't like the IGDA any more than you do. In fact, I met one of the founders and the guy is a complete and utter tophat wearing joke of a man who can't wait to shove his opinions down your throat. I believe I described him as "he should be wearing a sign that says 'come hither women, I will protect you as you are too weak to do it yourself'". But being suspicious and and attacking specific pieces of output for issues that simply do not exist in said output just makes you look like a paranoid conspiracy nut.

 

It's not like all the IGDA does is "SJW all over the place" - they've been releasing resources for developers for a long time now and most of their output is useful, and not everybody in the IGDA supports their #GamerGate stance (such as their South American representative who got put on the autoblocker).

 

What you're doing right now? That's guilt by association right there, that thing that everyone else uses to paint you and me as harassers. You can't pretend to be better than these jerks if you're not actually better.

 

 

As i said earlier, this is not some random memo. It's from the executive director that has the trust of the board of directors. If she steps down, i will concede to your point.

 

 

What? The IGDA one wasn't written by a woman. Or do you mean the person who promoted the autoblocker, then changed her mind and removed it again?

[Malcador]

I dunno, this just bugs the **** out of me, I admit. Maybe its a wrong impression, but man reading that document really did feel like reading a big "We're not telling you how to make a game...but let us tell you how you should make your game."

Yep, rather common throughout this whole affair too. Still not sure what they are pushing is as simple as localization though, but oh well.

[Blarghagh]

 

It's advice. Sound advice, at that (documenting decision-making processes both creates accountability and might save your ass down the line when that decision is contested by somebody with much lesser insight into the entirety of the issue). Nobody said you need to do it.

 

But - if someone actually is offended...will they actually care?

 

I mean if I, for example, were to provide documents indicating that GAME ELEMENT A is actually statistically very likely to exist in the setting of the Game.  And that GAME ELEMENT A is important to the story of the game, and therefore relevant to the experience created. And that after much consideration that we kept the element in knowing some people would be offended by it because the context really indicated we needed to keep it.

 

You think that would *matter* to the offended?  That they would stop their protests about the game, stop petitioning to have the sale of the game stopped because "Oh well, they explained it, we're all good"?

 

The only way to appease the offended would be to never do anything to offend them in the first place, yes?

 

This isn't about how to make your game. This is about localization.

I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation.

 

The effort of thinking outside our given cultural worldview often makes it difficult for a game designer in one locale to be aware of the issues that could cause problems in another locale. However, by considering at least the following four cultural variables that most often generate conflict between the game’s contextand local cultures, it is possible to reduce the potential for issues to arise:

That seems like a design level thought, this cannot exist solely at the time of localization.

 

 

Yes, that particular bit is design level thought - suggesting the possibility of considering localization beforehand because that would mean that you would have to change less would you find localization important as your personal developer choice. I'm still not seeing it as a big deal. This is essentially "do you find localization/not offending people important? here's some tips".

Edited March 13, 2015 by TrueNeutral

[Amentep]

Yes, that particular bit is design level thought - suggesting the possibility of considering localization beforehand because that would mean that you would have to change less would you find localization important as your personal developer choice. I'm still not seeing it as a big deal. This is essentially "do you find localization/not offending people important? here's some tips".

So it is about how you make the games. Its just that you don't see that it's "important". That's cool. I disagree, because again I have a bit of a knee jerk negative reaction with outside influences on creativity. YMMV.

[Blarghagh]

So the entire thing is about post-development localisation except for one paragraph that essentially says "if you're afraid localization will be difficult or a lot of work, you could decide to keep it in mind during the design level" and now it is entirely about how you make the game? That seems a leap to me, I guess.

 

Also, outside influence? Again, nobody is obliged to do any of these things, they can just choose to if they find it important. That way any single programming tutorial or design guideline could be counted as an outside influence in the same way. I wrote a couple of resources on tension arcs and storytelling back in school for fellow students, does it mean I'm an evil outside influence on the creativity of everyone who reads it, even if they choose not to use it?

 

And who do you think this is geared towards? The artiste indie dev who writes a game about the holocaust that will obviously have offending content? Or that company that makes educational, cartoony games for kids that are meant to be non-offensive due to target market?

 

Again, it just seems like much ado about nothing. Looking for malice where none exists.

[Malcador]

Not really malicious though, they think they're doing good with these 'guidelines'. Any time you write suggestions on how others are to do things you are trying to influence them from the outside, right ?

[Blarghagh]

Well, by that definition this very forum is an outside influence because people in the PoE section are constantly posting long game design rants about how a game should be made. Doesn't make it required. Or significant.

[Amentep]

So the entire thing is about post-development localisation except for one paragraph that essentially says "if you're afraid localization will be difficult or a lot of work, you could decide to keep it in mind during the design level" and now it is entirely about how you make the game? That seems a leap to me, I guess.

 

Also, outside influence? Again, nobody is obliged to do any of these things, they can just choose to if they find it important. That way any single programming tutorial or design guideline could be counted as an outside influence in the same way. I wrote a couple of resources on tension arcs and storytelling back in school for fellow students, does it mean I'm an evil outside influence on the creativity of everyone who reads it, even if they choose not to use it?

 

And who do you think this is geared towards? The artiste indie dev who writes a game about the holocaust that will obviously have offending content? Or that company that makes educational, cartoony games for kids that are meant to be non-offensive due to target market?

 

Again, it just seems like much ado about nothing. Looking for malice where none exists.

Okay so I can't really discuss this in the order you bring it up, so let me try to summarize:

 

A book like Robert McKee's STORY is vastly different than the IGDA supporting something it calls "Best Practices".  In my line of work when a body publishes "Best Practice" the intention is for these to become industry standard.  Often, there will end up being penalties if you do not follow these Best Practices, including no longer being able to participate in the organization that published the Best Practices because you don't follow their Best Practices.

 

Who do I think its geared for?  Its Best Practices.  Its intended to be an industry standard.  Otherwise it'd be "Some friendly suggestions" or even "Localization: Some Pitfalls You Might Want To Think About If You Like To Do That Sort Of Thing".

 

Sure I may be making a lot of ado about nothing.  BUT there is language that I've seen before in other industry standard Best Practice documents in my own line of work so I have a hard time accepting that the goal of the document isn't to become industry standard.  And it DOES effect game development.  To you in a negligible way, to me in a worrying way that makes me see developers second guessing their ideas so as to not offend some theoretical person "out there".

Edited March 13, 2015 by Amentep