Patrick DuganPatrick Dugan takes a hard look at the language barrier between Western games and Eastern audiences, and how a few bright minds are looking to the past to move China's game industry into the future.
Issue 49: Casual Friday - You Play My Language?
- Thread starter The Escapist Staff
- Start date
Original Comment by: Patrick
http://www.kingludic.blogspot.com
http://agtp.romhack.net/doukutsu.html [http://agtp.romhack.net/doukutsu.html]
I'm not sure how these XHTML tags work (I guess I don't play this langauge) but you can copy that link and find the download page for Cave Story, a fun Japanese freeware game in the tradition of Metroid. Theres and english patched version, but its fun to try and play it in its original language, it'll put the thesis of this article to the test.
http://www.kingludic.blogspot.com
http://agtp.romhack.net/doukutsu.html [http://agtp.romhack.net/doukutsu.html]
I'm not sure how these XHTML tags work (I guess I don't play this langauge) but you can copy that link and find the download page for Cave Story, a fun Japanese freeware game in the tradition of Metroid. Theres and english patched version, but its fun to try and play it in its original language, it'll put the thesis of this article to the test.
Original Comment by: David Pettitt
http://360.yahoo.com/icecreamsuit
Ah. I've already played through Cave Story in English, so unfortunately I can't try your little experiment.
Your article was interesting, there is no doubt about that, but I have a couple things to disagree with. The first is more specific: Egyptian Hieroglyphs are not a Pictographic language, at least not in the sense you mean. Yes, the hieroglyhic alphabet is made up of pictographs, but each one stands for a specific sound, much the way the letters of our alphabet do. In fact, it is that very assumption, that each hieroglyph stood for a word or concept, that prevented the translation of the hieroglyphs for millenia. Perhaps the Mi'kmaq hieroglyphic writing would have been a better example for this section of your article. I only know this because I took a university course on Egyptian history a few months back, and we spent a class discussing the this. In fact, the same prof is lecturing an entire course just on this subject next term; it sounds interesting, but I don't think I could handle it. Why?
Well, that brings me to my second point. If I understand your article correctly, you are in favour of the creation of artificial languages for the use in massively online games, as well as universally enjoyable single-player experiences. This simply isn't going to work. Either the language will be simple, allowing only for communication about things directly related to game activities, or it will be as complex as any other language. If the language is simple, what's the point? It will not allow for cross-cultural communication of any depth. If it's as complex as any other known language, it will also be just as difficult to learn. Yes, some people put in the time to learn purly fictional languages (Elven, Klingon), but they are far and few between. It's well-known that a person's ability to learn new languages decreases severely with the onset of puberty. There is no compelling reason for me to dedicate years of my life to aquiring the ability to be trash-talked to by 12-year-olds of a different language/culture, as well as those of my own.
Of course, if you manage to create an entirely new universal language, and have it catch on (unlike, say, Esperanto), you will have gained the undying admiration of every linguist alive.
http://360.yahoo.com/icecreamsuit
Ah. I've already played through Cave Story in English, so unfortunately I can't try your little experiment.
Your article was interesting, there is no doubt about that, but I have a couple things to disagree with. The first is more specific: Egyptian Hieroglyphs are not a Pictographic language, at least not in the sense you mean. Yes, the hieroglyhic alphabet is made up of pictographs, but each one stands for a specific sound, much the way the letters of our alphabet do. In fact, it is that very assumption, that each hieroglyph stood for a word or concept, that prevented the translation of the hieroglyphs for millenia. Perhaps the Mi'kmaq hieroglyphic writing would have been a better example for this section of your article. I only know this because I took a university course on Egyptian history a few months back, and we spent a class discussing the this. In fact, the same prof is lecturing an entire course just on this subject next term; it sounds interesting, but I don't think I could handle it. Why?
Well, that brings me to my second point. If I understand your article correctly, you are in favour of the creation of artificial languages for the use in massively online games, as well as universally enjoyable single-player experiences. This simply isn't going to work. Either the language will be simple, allowing only for communication about things directly related to game activities, or it will be as complex as any other language. If the language is simple, what's the point? It will not allow for cross-cultural communication of any depth. If it's as complex as any other known language, it will also be just as difficult to learn. Yes, some people put in the time to learn purly fictional languages (Elven, Klingon), but they are far and few between. It's well-known that a person's ability to learn new languages decreases severely with the onset of puberty. There is no compelling reason for me to dedicate years of my life to aquiring the ability to be trash-talked to by 12-year-olds of a different language/culture, as well as those of my own.
Of course, if you manage to create an entirely new universal language, and have it catch on (unlike, say, Esperanto), you will have gained the undying admiration of every linguist alive.
Original Comment by: Patrick
http://www.kingludic.blogspot.com
Yeah, I ended up putting the patch on not too far in, not because I needed it, but because it made for a more enjoyable experience.
My bad about the Heiroglyphics, though that is an interesting example of how pictographs can be alphabetical, or how logographs can be pictographico, or how alphabets can be logographic.
I think theres a middle ground between constrained langauge and natural language (that is, an artificial language nearing the complexity of natura language.) Lets say that all games are "langauge games", in a sense loosely borrowed from Wittgenstien, and that every game requires the learning of a langauge, particularly the verbs. As the recent Crawford interview begrudgingly implies, people like lower verb counts because its easier to get into the playground that way.
The problem with social challenge (i.e. interactive drama or storytelling) is that social play is interesting because of contrast in contexts. If the whole game is people talking on the bus you can have a small langauge and keep it simple, but thats not very interesting in terms of global agency. If you have other contexts, drinking at the bar, office politics, home life, sex, these things can all work as a bigger mesh and you get some nice emergent play from the overlaps. The result is a verb-set (interface langauge) which is inconsistent by context, the contexts being consistent. So you have a consistently inconsistent interface, meaning you can operate effectively in one context without knowing the entire language, and as you venture into new contexts you know some of what you need and infer the rest. Life is actually a lot like this, we all "know" english (or whatever your first langauge is) by the time we're four or so, but we're constantly learning new words in new settings. You remember the first time you heard the word "sex"? For about a year I thought it meant kissing naked, for another I though it meant oral sex (this is elementary school I'm talking about). But by the time I needed to know what that verb was all about, I already knew the basics, though thats one of those games thats easy to learn but takes a lifetime to master.
So by distributing language across contexts you can effectively keep the learning of the interface integrated with the wax and wane of the flow experience.
http://www.kingludic.blogspot.com
Yeah, I ended up putting the patch on not too far in, not because I needed it, but because it made for a more enjoyable experience.
My bad about the Heiroglyphics, though that is an interesting example of how pictographs can be alphabetical, or how logographs can be pictographico, or how alphabets can be logographic.
I think theres a middle ground between constrained langauge and natural language (that is, an artificial language nearing the complexity of natura language.) Lets say that all games are "langauge games", in a sense loosely borrowed from Wittgenstien, and that every game requires the learning of a langauge, particularly the verbs. As the recent Crawford interview begrudgingly implies, people like lower verb counts because its easier to get into the playground that way.
The problem with social challenge (i.e. interactive drama or storytelling) is that social play is interesting because of contrast in contexts. If the whole game is people talking on the bus you can have a small langauge and keep it simple, but thats not very interesting in terms of global agency. If you have other contexts, drinking at the bar, office politics, home life, sex, these things can all work as a bigger mesh and you get some nice emergent play from the overlaps. The result is a verb-set (interface langauge) which is inconsistent by context, the contexts being consistent. So you have a consistently inconsistent interface, meaning you can operate effectively in one context without knowing the entire language, and as you venture into new contexts you know some of what you need and infer the rest. Life is actually a lot like this, we all "know" english (or whatever your first langauge is) by the time we're four or so, but we're constantly learning new words in new settings. You remember the first time you heard the word "sex"? For about a year I thought it meant kissing naked, for another I though it meant oral sex (this is elementary school I'm talking about). But by the time I needed to know what that verb was all about, I already knew the basics, though thats one of those games thats easy to learn but takes a lifetime to master.
So by distributing language across contexts you can effectively keep the learning of the interface integrated with the wax and wane of the flow experience.
Original Comment by: Duncan
http://ghostsinthegame.blogspot.com/
Patrick - Interesting, yet oddly convoluted, as usual.
David - I think that Patrick is not so much suggesting that we create a language for communication in games, more that we consider the language inherent in the interfaces we design. I'll try to give you a couple of quick examples.
Think about operating systems. I'm a Windows user, mostly because of ubiquity and laziness. It is everywhere and, while not free, is less time consuming to learn than Linux (in any variety) and therefore less costly to me. I also happen to be among a majority of users. I know how Windows operates. I know that if I click the little X in the corner, the window (or program) will typically close. I know that if I double click the window bar, the window will try to maximize or restore to window size. Little things that we have learned by using the interface. Knowing these things means that I speak Windows fluently.
But I've read (and experienced to a degree) that there is a significant gap for initial users of the Mac OS, coming from a Windows platform. For instance, that little double-click of the window bar has a completely different effect on the Mac window. People switching from one OS to another have to relearn their interface language before they can communicate efficiently. I think that as we see users? ability to easily switch from OS to OS and interface to interface, certain features and actions will begin to show up everywhere. The languages of the interfaces will move towards uniformity because it will be easier for people to speak with your interface if it is similar (or identical) to one they are already familiar with.
For another (much shorter) example, I'll refer you to a previous Escapist article found here [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/issue/28/22]. While the article is talking about a game implemented language barrier, I'll ask you to notice that the players were able to overcome it by using a universal gesture language. The language was simple, yet it was able to communicate enough information to accomplish much more detailed objectives. By carefully designing our ability to communicate on multiple levels, we can facilitate inter-language communication. These can be social, gestural, pictorial, or other simplifications. Regardless of the specifics, they will allow us to break communication barriers down, and should be considered in the primary design phase for best effect.
http://ghostsinthegame.blogspot.com/
Patrick - Interesting, yet oddly convoluted, as usual.
David - I think that Patrick is not so much suggesting that we create a language for communication in games, more that we consider the language inherent in the interfaces we design. I'll try to give you a couple of quick examples.
Think about operating systems. I'm a Windows user, mostly because of ubiquity and laziness. It is everywhere and, while not free, is less time consuming to learn than Linux (in any variety) and therefore less costly to me. I also happen to be among a majority of users. I know how Windows operates. I know that if I click the little X in the corner, the window (or program) will typically close. I know that if I double click the window bar, the window will try to maximize or restore to window size. Little things that we have learned by using the interface. Knowing these things means that I speak Windows fluently.
But I've read (and experienced to a degree) that there is a significant gap for initial users of the Mac OS, coming from a Windows platform. For instance, that little double-click of the window bar has a completely different effect on the Mac window. People switching from one OS to another have to relearn their interface language before they can communicate efficiently. I think that as we see users? ability to easily switch from OS to OS and interface to interface, certain features and actions will begin to show up everywhere. The languages of the interfaces will move towards uniformity because it will be easier for people to speak with your interface if it is similar (or identical) to one they are already familiar with.
For another (much shorter) example, I'll refer you to a previous Escapist article found here [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/issue/28/22]. While the article is talking about a game implemented language barrier, I'll ask you to notice that the players were able to overcome it by using a universal gesture language. The language was simple, yet it was able to communicate enough information to accomplish much more detailed objectives. By carefully designing our ability to communicate on multiple levels, we can facilitate inter-language communication. These can be social, gestural, pictorial, or other simplifications. Regardless of the specifics, they will allow us to break communication barriers down, and should be considered in the primary design phase for best effect.