Please have a qualified proof reader verify the dialog

For discussion about Trine 2, released in December 2011 on Windows, Mac, Xbox, PlayStation Network and later on Linux and Wii U.
Mr Pleasant
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 6:22 am

Please have a qualified proof reader verify the dialog

Postby Mr Pleasant » Fri Jun 18, 2010 6:31 am

Hello,

Trine is a cool game, but one thing that bugged me about it was the terrible English spoken by the narrator. In a video preview for the 2nd game, which I just watched, the problem persists:

"Tonight it was calling them again!" That is a hybrid of "Tonight it IS calling them again," and "THAT night it was calling them again." Is the narrator meaning to convey past-tense or present-tense? "Tonight" is present-tense, "was" is past-tense. In the first game, the poor English was constantly worked against the mood for me, I'm just hoping that won't be the case in Trine 2.

User avatar
fb_joel
Site Admin
Posts: 2482
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 2:14 pm
Location: Finland

Re: Please have a qualified proof reader verify the dialog

Postby fb_joel » Fri Jun 18, 2010 11:13 am

I'm glad I didn't have to find my Shacknews account info. ;)

First of all, we write the script directly in English, there's no translation in-between. The script(s) have been read by a couple of native speakers and the actors themselves make/suggest modifications during recording. I'm also fairly sure that there are not many typos or direct grammatical errors in the Trine script.

However, I can't say I'm too surprised about the issue - the tense forms are a little tough to get right as a non-native speaker. We wanted to use the past tense for the most part (i.e. "a grandfather telling the story to his grandchildren" type of thing). But as we went along, we just started writing stuff that sounded good and fit the situation (as the story is happening to the characters right there and then, their voice is obviously in present-tense, and some of this probably carried over to the narrator's lines too).

I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few lines which don't sound 'right' but I think most of the narrator's lines are delivered in such a great way that most people didn't really notice many of the issues. I know there are a few lines which I don't like myself but we just didn't have time to polish it all (we basically rewrote the whole script in 24 hours on the night before the voice over recordings).

This said, I would appreciate more examples (from Trine 1). I can send you the script (as an Excel file or .txt) if you would like to take a look and point out where it goes wrong. Edit: I've made it available here.

As for Trine 2, the script will be better. We have more people working on it, we have more time to polish it, and Atlus is a North American publisher who have specialized in Japanese to English localization. If we know where the Trine 1 script goes wrong then I guess it'd be even easier to make it better... :)
// Joel, Frozenbyte team

Mr Pleasant
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 6:22 am

Re: Please have a qualified proof reader verify the dialog

Postby Mr Pleasant » Fri Jun 18, 2010 2:44 pm

>> I'm glad I didn't have to find my Shacknews account info. ;)

Ahaha, that's a bit embarassing.

>> If we know where the Trine 1 script goes wrong then I guess it'd be even easier to make it better... :)

The grammar issues are of the nature of being off-sounding, meaning that it is slightly disordered and inefficient English. I'll give examples from the intro to the game, and it'll seem unforgiving, but then that's the whole point.


On the outskirts of the kingdom, near the Astral Academy, a thief carried out her cunning plan.
The above phrase references a cunning plan that hasn't yet been established to exist. It also says "carried," which is a past-tense use that suggests the plan concluded - which it had not. You might instead say "a thief was carrying out a cunning plan." In this example, you would use "her" to refer to the plan only after it had been established to exist, which was done by the use of "a" (as in "a cunning plan") instead of "her".


The gentle moon smiled at the Thief as she made her way towards the shrine of ancient treasure. Strangely, the protective charms around the shrine allowed her to enter unharmed.
In the phrase "gentle moon smiled," "smiled" is allegory without recognizable meaning. It sounds pretty, but how does the moon relate to the Thief in a way that it could be referred to as smiling?
Also, to whom is it strange that the protective charms allowed her to enter? As the audience to the narrator, there's no reason for it to be strange to us because we're just accepting as fact whatever the narrator tells us. If it's strange to the Thief, then it should be worded that the "strangely" is in accordance to the Thief's perception: "Strangely, or so thought the Thief, ..." or "The Thief thought it strange that..."


Unknown to the Thief, a wizard was just waking up.
This begs the question, why is it noteworthy that the Thief didn't know? Essentially, it isn't relevant whether the Thief knew or not, because the characters' stories aren't inter-connected at this point. Simply, a wizard was waking up, an action for which there was no reason why it should be connected to the Thief's knowledge. Unrelated to the Thief, a wizard was waking up, one who would become known to the Thief shortly, but at this point they are operating on entirely separate schedules.


He had been studying the stars and trying hard to learn the elusive fireball spell that all wizards ought to know. Of course, that was a lie.
Here, the narrator says "of course, that was a lie" as if the claim that the Wizard had been studying the stars came from the Wizard himself, but it didn't, it came from the narrator. It doesn't make sense for the narrator to state something, and then say "of course, that was a lie." The narrator could say, "actually, that is a lie," but then the narrator is calling himself a liar. If it was a lie, why did the narrator say it? Alternatively, the narrator could establish that the claim of studying the stars in fact did come from the Wizard by saying something like "The Wizard had told those who know him that he would be studying the stars, trying hard to learn the elusive fireball spell that all wizards ought to know."
If that example was followed, the "of course" would still not fit, because no reason to doubt that claim has yet been established. The narrator states "of course" as if they're confirming the sentiment with us, but we don't know for ourselves yet because we've only just been introduced to the Wizard and don't know those sort of background character details about him.


For you see, the Wizard had a certain reputation with the ladies. What he had really been up to was the creation of a fake fireball potion that would have impressed the ladies and improved his status. The potion had backfired causing a fortnight of sleep.
Now the Wizard's character and potential motive has been established. If the narrator said "of course" in reference to the lie at this point, it would make some sense.

Also, the past-tense doesn't need to be established twice over in the sentence:
"What he had really been up to was the creation of a fake fireball potion that would have impressed the ladies"

It is cleaner to write:
What he had really been up to was the creation of a fake fireball potion that would impress the ladies



There you are, hope it will be of use. I'm looking forward to Trine 2.

Malygris
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 9:01 am

Re: Please have a qualified proof reader verify the dialog

Postby Malygris » Fri Jun 18, 2010 7:12 pm

For what it's worth, I'll take the magical, fairy-tale dialog over efficient English any day. Keep that gentle moon smiling. ;)

ZachCraft
Posts: 80
Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 10:29 pm

Re: Please have a qualified proof reader verify the dialog

Postby ZachCraft » Sun Jun 20, 2010 12:31 am

Pleasant, the grammar is viable to all but the most obsessed grammar Nazis like yourself. The whole point is to understand something, which you obviously do. Stop nit-picking small things that hardly ruin the immersion that Trine tries to provide. You really need to relax.

Mr Pleasant
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 6:22 am

Re: Please have a qualified proof reader verify the dialog

Postby Mr Pleasant » Sun Jun 20, 2010 1:05 am

Malygris wrote:For what it's worth, I'll take the magical, fairy-tale dialog over efficient English any day. Keep that gentle moon smiling. ;)


It's not a one-or-the-other deal. After all, it isn't the lack of meaning that makes it fairy-tale like, and fairy-tale's aren't characterized by lacking meaning behind their allegory, or the other issues I've tried to note.

You could say something like:
"The moon lit the path, providing off a favourable mood as if to smile on the Thief's endeavor."


I think that example is more eloquent, it's deeper/richer, it makes sense, and the result is that it becomes more fairy-tale-like because instead of imitating appearances while being hollow, it fulfills them by being the real thing.
Last edited by Mr Pleasant on Sun Jun 20, 2010 1:31 am, edited 4 times in total.

Mr Pleasant
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 6:22 am

Re: Please have a qualified proof reader verify the dialog

Postby Mr Pleasant » Sun Jun 20, 2010 1:19 am

ZachCraft wrote:Pleasant, the grammar is viable to all but the most obsessed grammar Nazis like yourself. The whole point is to understand something, which you obviously do. Stop nit-picking small things that hardly ruin the immersion that Trine tries to provide. You really need to relax.


You don't speak for anybody but yourself, and that is a good thing. I posted this because the bad English actually does ruin the immersion of the game, and is poor in no small way. If it was a small thing, I wouldn't care about it. As it is, it is what is called "broken English." It's the one and only game that I've ever felt compelled to comment on concerning the language (because it's refined in concept, but has its structure completely scrambled).

Also, if you think this is being a grammar nazi, your understanding of English must be terrible, too. "In-efficient" was being polite. The English in the first Trine simply doesn't make sense in many areas. If your standards are so low that all that's needed is to get the meaning out of it, then this is all that's needed to satisfy you: "Soldier to enemy, blade swings, smashes, wins battle, moon pretty light." Is that adequate for you? According to what you've posted ("The whole point is to understand something"), it is. That is how silly your argument is, and should show you that there's quite a bit more to producing quality that just getting some meaning through. So relax, and don't let yourself get worked up over people posting legitimate constructive criticism. Maybe even try posting some yourself.


I think you must have also failed to observe that fb_joel asked to be given examples from Trine's script, and that I was obliging his request to be of assistance. Your response was completely out of place.
Last edited by Mr Pleasant on Sun Jun 20, 2010 1:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

Steelheart
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 1:27 am

Re: Please have a qualified proof reader verify the dialog

Postby Steelheart » Sun Jun 20, 2010 1:32 am

Mr Pleasant wrote:"Soldier to enemy, blade swings, smashes, wins battle, moon pretty light." Is that adequate for you? According to what you've posted ("The whole point is to understand something"), it is.


I had to register just to comment on this.

The quality of writing in Trine is nowhere near this bad, so your argument falls on it's face right off the bat. The point is to understand what is being conveyed, and Trine does that extremely well. Dialogue does not need to be perfect to be enjoyable.

ZachCraft
Posts: 80
Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 10:29 pm

Re: Please have a qualified proof reader verify the dialog

Postby ZachCraft » Sun Jun 20, 2010 1:32 am

Just stop, bro.

You're nit-picking.

If your immersion is ruined by a couple bad words that could be argued correct, you should really seek help.

Or join the SS, it's your choice.

Mr Pleasant
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 6:22 am

Re: Please have a qualified proof reader verify the dialog

Postby Mr Pleasant » Sun Jun 20, 2010 1:39 am

Steelheart wrote:
Mr Pleasant wrote:"Soldier to enemy, blade swings, smashes, wins battle, moon pretty light." Is that adequate for you? According to what you've posted ("The whole point is to understand something"), it is.


I had to register just to comment on this.

The quality of writing in Trine is nowhere near this bad, so your argument falls on it's face right off the bat. The point is to understand what is being conveyed, and Trine does that extremely well. Dialogue does not need to be perfect to be enjoyable.


You've misunderstood. That wasn't a comparison to Trine's quality of writing, it was a correction of ZachCraft statement that "The whole point is to understand something." If that were simply the whole point, than my example would have been adequate. My point was that there is more to it than to be able to grasp what's trying to be said. I understand immigrants who can hardly form a sentence, but that doesn't make their language ideal for a script.
Last edited by Mr Pleasant on Sun Jun 20, 2010 1:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

Mr Pleasant
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 6:22 am

Re: Please have a qualified proof reader verify the dialog

Postby Mr Pleasant » Sun Jun 20, 2010 1:45 am

ZachCraft wrote:Just stop, bro.

You're nit-picking.

If your immersion is ruined by a couple bad words that could be argued correct, you should really seek help.

Or join the SS, it's your choice.


Or, more likely, your understanding of language is pretty poor. Actually, this is proven by you stating that the examples could be argued as being correct. They could not, and I'm sorry you think that they could. Your post is only a statement on yourself. I'm glad to be able to accommodate fb_joel's request for examples, even if it means putting up with trolls who don't know better. If you can't tolerate constructive criticism, especially when it's asked for, you're going to have a lot of problems in life.

Steelheart
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 1:27 am

Re: Please have a qualified proof reader verify the dialog

Postby Steelheart » Sun Jun 20, 2010 1:47 am

Mr Pleasant wrote:You've misunderstood. That wasn't a comparison to Trine's quality of writing, it was a correction of ZachCraft statement that "The whole point is to understand something." If that were simply the whole point, than my example would have been adequate. My point was that there is more to it than to be able to grasp what's trying to be said.


But that IS the whole point of dialog. To convey the story to the player in a way they can understand it. This doesn't mean that I (Or Zachcraft, I'm sure) would settle for something like your example. We can simply appreciate the dialogue present in Trine without having a need to correct it.

Mr Pleasant
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 6:22 am

Re: Please have a qualified proof reader verify the dialog

Postby Mr Pleasant » Sun Jun 20, 2010 1:53 am

Steelheart wrote:
Mr Pleasant wrote:You've misunderstood. That wasn't a comparison to Trine's quality of writing, it was a correction of ZachCraft statement that "The whole point is to understand something." If that were simply the whole point, than my example would have been adequate. My point was that there is more to it than to be able to grasp what's trying to be said.


But that IS the whole point of dialog. To convey the story to the player in a way they can understand it. This doesn't mean that I (Or Zachcraft, I'm sure) would settle for something like your example. We can simply appreciate the dialogue present in Trine without having a need to correct it.


Here, I disagree, and would not have found masterpieces from Beauty and the Beast to Star Wars nearly as charming if their scripts had been delivered in similarly broken English, and neither would the fans worldwide. I'm confident that Trine would be like-wise all the better with a grammar-correct script.

But that aside... So, then you would also find a point at which you'd say "that's too bad to be acceptable," but for you, the dialog in Trine was not at that point. For me, it was, although I was able to let it go easier once I found out that Frozenbyte is Finnish and not English-native. Still, the room for improvement is tangible, and so I'm here to give friendly criticism.
I'm sure your perspective, as someone for whom the language is appreciable, also doesn't see a problem with someone who does wish to see it improved. Others here are merely giving a knee-jerk defensive reaction without any thought.
Last edited by Mr Pleasant on Sun Jun 20, 2010 2:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

Steelheart
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 1:27 am

Re: Please have a qualified proof reader verify the dialog

Postby Steelheart » Sun Jun 20, 2010 2:04 am

Mr Pleasant wrote:So then you would also find a point at which you'd say "that's too bad to be acceptable," but for you, the dialog in Trine was not at that point. For me, it was, although I was able to let it go easier once I found out that Frozenbyte is Finnish and not English-native. Still, the room for improvement is tangible, and so I'm here to give friendly criticism.
I'm sure your perspective, as someone for whom the language is appreciable, also doesn't see a problem with someone who does wish to see it improved. Others here are merely giving a knee-jerk defensive reaction without any thought.


A matter of opinion then. I can understand that, but I have to comment on your absurdly high standards when it comes to the English language. I know lots of people who are English-native, and would settle for a lot less than what Trine is offering.

I hope I didn't come off as overly aggressive, for I meant no offense.

ZachCraft
Posts: 80
Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 10:29 pm

Re: Please have a qualified proof reader verify the dialog

Postby ZachCraft » Sun Jun 20, 2010 2:53 am

Nothin' but grammar Nazi.

I bet you hate cats, too.

User avatar
fb_joel
Site Admin
Posts: 2482
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 2:14 pm
Location: Finland

Re: Please have a qualified proof reader verify the dialog

Postby fb_joel » Mon Jun 21, 2010 11:46 am

Oh man I knew I should've replied here before the weekend... :?

I'd like to ask everyone to calm down a bit. I can see why there's been a bit of an uproar but you know... I did ask for it. :) I do know that there are countless other games with much worse English, but granted, they're mostly European/Russian games. Ultimately the goal of this thread is to make Trine 2 better. That's what we all want. :P

Mr. Pleasant, thanks for the examples. It helps to see where you're coming from.

For argument's sake, I would say that besides #1 and #5, these are not "bad English" per se, just bad storytelling (I'm probably thinking of language rules more as grammar rules).

We only had a limited amount of time to tell those lines. Our biggest concern was whether or not the player can run through the tutorial level and get to the cutscenes before the narrator has had time to finish - the final lines are just enough to prevent overlapping speech, so that explains some of it. But nevertheless, I agree, the lines should have been better. The only one that I could defend is the fourth one, "Unknown to the Thief", because we are actually telling the story to the player, and the player is still at that point very much emotionally connected to the Thief. The player doesn't know about any other characters yet and could be thinking that she's gonna play the entire game with the Thief. Therefore we felt that some connection between the characters was good. And in fact, it does establish that the Thief doesn't know about the Wizard, and he's definitely not an accomplice, which is good to know as the whole point of the game is that these three "random" characters get sucked into an adventure. With some further thought I'm sure something a little better could be thought of instead, but I don't feel particularly bad about this one.

#1 actually was originally written as "a thief was carrying out a cunning plan" but it was later revised to the current form for whatever reason.

Anyhow, I'm going to send an email as well, probably not much use doing this in public. :)
// Joel, Frozenbyte team

User avatar
Kein
Posts: 169
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 5:34 pm
Location: Soviet Empire
Contact:

Re: Please have a qualified proof reader verify the dialog

Postby Kein » Mon Jun 21, 2010 6:25 pm

I prefer simple english since I'm not a native speaker. And I see nothing wrong with Trine's dialogs (obviously lol).

User avatar
Mr. ShadowStealer
Posts: 435
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 10:12 pm
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: Please have a qualified proof reader verify the dialog

Postby Mr. ShadowStealer » Mon Jun 21, 2010 11:39 pm

Kein wrote:I prefer simple english since I'm not a native speaker. And I see nothing wrong with Trine's dialogs (obviously lol).


Heh, I'm with this one. Simple English over complex English provides a lot better athmosphere than having to film all the cutscenes just to be watched later on with a dictionary.

Also Mr. Pleasant if you don't like bad English or the dialogue, then I suggest you to stay far far away from Starwolves and Starwolves 2 games. ;P Those games in my opinion have horrible dialogue which brings down the athmosphere of the game but if you can get over it, then those games are quite enjoyable.
Not all of you have äää's and ööö's :P

Mr Pleasant
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 6:22 am

Re: Please have a qualified proof reader verify the dialog

Postby Mr Pleasant » Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:03 am

fb_joel wrote:Anyhow, I'm going to send an email as well, probably not much use doing this in public. :)


I also had that though, though only after I'd posted and already been replied to :?

Mr. ShadowStealer wrote:Also Mr. Pleasant if you don't like bad English or the dialogue, then I suggest you to stay far far away from Starwolves and Starwolves 2 games. ;P Those games in my opinion have horrible dialogue which brings down the athmosphere of the game but if you can get over it, then those games are quite enjoyable.

Well, there's a difference in some cases. For example, the much known "someone set us up on the bomb" and "all your bases are belong us!"... when a game has bad English like that, you're not trying to take it seriously in the first place and it's not a bother. When a game is otherwise highly polished, and the language is intending to further the atmosphere (which is otherwise a very enthralling one), then it's a lot more distracting and unfortunate when the immersion is broken.

And I don't know about the Starwolves games, but now I'm going to look them up :P

alexrudd
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 8:43 pm

Re: Please have a qualified proof reader verify the dialog

Postby alexrudd » Tue Jun 22, 2010 9:56 pm

The grammar issues are of the nature of being off-sounding, meaning that it is slightly disordered and inefficient English.
You, sir, appear to have a solid graph of the technical mechanics of language but appear to miss the forest for the trees. From what I understand, your point is that a couple of grammar minutiae ruin any attempt at story-telling the dialog attempts.

You're arguing that the dialog - which is compact and praised for its story-telling - is "slightly disordered and inefficient"? OK, I can parse that. However, you choose to make this point with the utterly clear and concise sentence I have quoted above, without the slightest hint of irony. Here I don't understand.

Perhaps the examples you give will enlighten me?
On the outskirts of the kingdom, near the Astral Academy, a thief carried out her cunning plan.
The above phrase references a cunning plan that hasn't yet been established to exist.

Oops. I had forgotten Part 3 of Technical Addendum XIX to the APA Manual of Style, so I looked it up:
Maintain proper order when mentioning objects for the first time.
*Make sure to describe a general location first before including the name of a specific place.
*Likewise, mention any characters before describing their actions or possessions. However, the initial description of the character may not include any references to objects which have not previously been mentioned.


Ok, that explains it. I'm always glad to add new rules to my grammar book. (Oh, crap. I appeared to have referenced my grammar book without previously establishing its existence! I'm abandoning this one for further study.) Next.

The gentle moon smiled at the Thief as she made her way towards the shrine of ancient treasure. Strangely, the protective charms around the shrine allowed her to enter unharmed.In the phrase "gentle moon smiled," "smiled" is allegory without recognizable meaning. It sounds pretty, but how does the moon relate to the Thief in a way that it could be referred to as smiling?
I believe the concept of personification needs to schedule a visit with you. Are you free this Friday?

Also, to whom is it strange that the protective charms allowed her to enter? As the audience to the narrator, there's no reason for it to be strange to us because we're just accepting as fact whatever the narrator tells us. If it's strange to the Thief, then it should be worded that the "strangely" is in accordance to the Thief's perception: "Strangely, or so thought the Thief, ..." or "The Thief thought it strange that..."
I'll agree with you in that the protective charms are confusing. Actions are described before they have even been established to exist! Also, there is the allegory of allowance which, as far as I can discern, has no meaning.
However, I did find it completely strange that the charms established to protect an ancient shrine did so little to deter such an obvious thief. I am disappointed that the narrator said merely "Strangely" rather than taking the opportunity to engage in an interesting analysis of defensive spells, the nature of perception, and the thief's inner thoughts.

After having such a taxing time plodding through the Trine dialog and this thread, I give up. Hopefully some other valiant crusader will take up the flag for the advancement of the English language.

alexrudd
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 8:43 pm

Re: Please have a qualified proof reader verify the dialog

Postby alexrudd » Tue Jun 22, 2010 10:14 pm

Since the Internet is terrible at communicating tone or intent:

@Mr. Pleasant : My post is only meant as a slight poking fun at your stance. Please take it humorously, not maliciously. However, I hope you get the point I was trying to make.

@Joel + devs: Don't worry, the English is fine. Spend your time somewhere else.

Mr Pleasant
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 6:22 am

Re: Please have a qualified proof reader verify the dialog

Postby Mr Pleasant » Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:46 am

@Joel + devs: Don't worry, the English is fine. Spend your time somewhere else.


It isn't, it's just that neither is yours, and you apparently think that saying some words is paramount to having a point.

I believe the concept of personification needs to schedule a visit with you. Are you free this Friday?

Good for you that you know the term personification, but the issue with that phrase has absolutely nothing to do with it being a personification.


alexrudd wrote:Since the Internet is terrible at communicating tone or intent:

@Mr. Pleasant : My post is only meant as a slight poking fun at your stance. Please take it humorously, not maliciously. However, I hope you get the point I was trying to make.


Yet it fails because your points are all erroneous and therefore have no point to them. You're trying to illustrate that the English is fine by making up fantasy explanations for it, ones that in the end don't justify or explain a thing. What's the use of pretending to have rebuked criticism without actually doing so? A creative short story detailing why the Theory of Relativity only applies to upside-down chocolate cake wouldn't have any relevance to scientists who are trying to seriously work within its confines, much as your imaginative rebuttal has no relevance to the real meaning behind these criticisms or the goals of Trine 2's developers.

Mr Pleasant
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 6:22 am

Re: Please have a qualified proof reader verify the dialog

Postby Mr Pleasant » Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:59 am

Steelheart wrote:
Mr Pleasant wrote:So then you would also find a point at which you'd say "that's too bad to be acceptable," but for you, the dialog in Trine was not at that point. For me, it was, although I was able to let it go easier once I found out that Frozenbyte is Finnish and not English-native. Still, the room for improvement is tangible, and so I'm here to give friendly criticism.
I'm sure your perspective, as someone for whom the language is appreciable, also doesn't see a problem with someone who does wish to see it improved. Others here are merely giving a knee-jerk defensive reaction without any thought.


A matter of opinion then. I can understand that, but I have to comment on your absurdly high standards when it comes to the English language. I know lots of people who are English-native, and would settle for a lot less than what Trine is offering.

I hope I didn't come off as overly aggressive, for I meant no offense.


No offense taken. Honestly, though, what I'm illustrating isn't a very high level of English at all. It's simply a difference between having proper English and confused English that sounds as if it's being spoken by a non-English-native speaker. The one thing that throws that perception off is the natural pronunciation of the narrator, which is exactly why I was bugged by the language so much: the speaker is clearly English-adept and the mood he's conveying is trying to be equally rich, but the structure of the sentences he's speaking is somewhat indicative of speaking to a foreign for whom English is a second language - there are a lot of odd habits and mannerisms being employed.

User avatar
Mr. ShadowStealer
Posts: 435
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 10:12 pm
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: Please have a qualified proof reader verify the dialog

Postby Mr. ShadowStealer » Wed Jun 23, 2010 10:06 am

Yay. The first signs of forum debate. \o/ This can only mean that this forum is getting to the league of big forums. ^^

Only proper moderators and forum trolls are missing now. :lol:
Not all of you have äää's and ööö's :P

User avatar
fb_joel
Site Admin
Posts: 2482
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 2:14 pm
Location: Finland

Re: Please have a qualified proof reader verify the dialog

Postby fb_joel » Wed Jun 23, 2010 3:39 pm

Heh, indeed. :) But I'm not going to lock this thread unless the personal attacks get, well, more personal.

There's not much more I can add to the discussion though, I've pretty much already said all I want to say. It is our aim to make Trine 2 better in all aspects, and as story is one of those aspects, we need to focus on the language as well. The time spent on this is not meaningful in the overall development schedule, and it's all done by people who are not actually working on the main game itself, i.e. there's no programmers or artists involved in this kind of work, so having better writing doesn't detract from any other parts of the game. And it is much more helpful to see examples than try to figure out why some people haven't liked the story/dialogue/characters (a minority of the reviewers and gamers feel this way, there's no denying that). Also, I'm somewhat of a grammar nazi myself when it comes to languages (especially with Finnish of course), so working on the language is in fact one of the most fun parts of my job, even if this time I'm more in an editorial capacity (which should suit me even better, so I'm quite excited about the new script). I also believe that having an American publisher will help enormously in the later stages of the script.

I should probably mention that we're not easily offended so threads and feedback like this are not a "problem", and like I said, if it helps make our future games better, then we should welcome it with open arms. We stand by our games and if there's something wrong, we'll try to learn from it.

Anyhow, if you guys on both sides of the argument still want to argue over this and the examples, be my guest. :)
// Joel, Frozenbyte team


Return to “Trine 2”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 0 guests