[Unreview] English translation of Natalie
ems...@mindspring.com
the following invitation:
>Another thing. Italian community is trying to translate games in
english to let
>a lot of people to play them. Fabrizio Venerandi translated his
interesting
>(and very short) one room game: Natalie. We would appreciate a lot if
you could
>take a look: http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/12042. I think it
worths a
>look.
Here are some of my initial impressions on this game. [I am posting
to both the English rec.games.int-fiction and to
it.comp.giochi.avventure.testuali; to the denizens of the latter
group, I apologize, but I cannot write Italian.]
The premise of Natalie seems to be that the player is communicating
(telepathically?) with a trapped player character in a prison of some
sort -- though it soon turns out that that is not exactly the case, I
never became entirely sure what the truth was. I reached the game's
first major twist, but that is about as far as it goes.
The narrative is quite a bit more subjective than the average: this
other character (whoever he or she may be) is aware of talking to the
player, and addresses you directly. It is an interesting idea to have
the player character be a distinct person/personality from the player;
a few English games have experimented with it (LASH and FailSafe come
to mind), but the idea is not at all used up yet. Here, it generates
a few genuinely creepy moments.
However, I think the merits of Natalie are somewhat undermined by the
translation. The English is usually comprehensible, but it doesn't
feel native, and there are quite a few times when it uses the wrong
word. The punctuation is also messy -- by which I mean not just the
run-on sentences, which I take to be an intentional sign of the
stream-of-consciousness narrative, but the fact that the periods are
consistently outside quotation marks when they should be inside.
Technical punctuation problems could be cleaned up pretty easily. I
think, however, that an improvement of the translation would need to
be done by someone who is reasonably fluent in Italian and has a
native-level ability in English. This is particularly important
because of the literary ambitions of this particular game; in another
context, a serviceable but not stylish translation might be enough.
But where nuance of style and subtlety of atmosphere are required, you
need someone who is as capable a writer in English as the original
author was in Italian.
Then there is an additional issue, and I am not sure whether there is
anything that the Italian community could or should do about this.
The few pieces of IF that I've played that were translated from
Italian tend to conform to a different set of expectations than
English IF. The descriptions are often more emotional and less
objectively specific; while they seem more like literary products,
they make life harder on the player. It isn't always easy to tell
what or where the essential objects for interaction are. For
instance, in the opening scenes of this game, there are some nouns
that are examinable, and are quite important; other nouns, mentioned
in much the same way, seem to be unimplemented, and trying to interact
with them generates only the unenlightening response "I don't think I
want to hear you".
Here's a sample from early in the game:
---
>X POOLS
"I'm tired, I approach the pools and I stomp one or two of them with
my bare feet, making the water squirt all around: water falling back
on more water, accumulating, can't see anything else but water with
water inside closed itself within water opening and closing and
glittering, bouncing from the celiling to the floor.
I know there's a grid in one of the pools, I invented that before, do
you remember? I think I saw a grid."
>X GRID
"I can barely see its outlline, it looks like a rectangular grid, al
immerged
in the water, completely fown the water, that damn muddy cold water."
---
There are some misspellings (outlline, al, celiling), and words that
don't exist or are misused (immerged, fown, invented). But leaving
aside that kind of problem, which could be fixed trivially by a native
speaker with a red pencil, there remains a tendency towards
impressionism and vagueness that is strongly at odds with the
conventional approach of English-language IF.
Combined with this is a quality that reads, in English, as
self-consciously literary, whether or not it feels that way in
Italian. It draws attention to itself as a piece of written text, and
to the process of reading it. And this goes counter to my own
inclinations for IF writing. I tend to think that the purpose of IF
text, in English, is generally to provide a near-transparent access to
the world model: to concentrate the player's attention on what is, to
create a sense of physical presence and of existing in a tangible
location. There are exceptions; "Moonlit Tower" is consciously artful
in its writing, but I found that fit perfectly the precious, wrought
qualities of the game world itself, and I wasn't particularly
bothered.
Meanwhile, paradoxically, I often find the puzzles in Italian IF to be
particularly difficult and to require a great deal of reading the
author's mind. Literary IF, in the English community, is frequently
positioned as the opposite of puzzle-based IF; here is a form that is
a bit of both.
I noted similar tendencies in "Ramon and Jonathan" (which I found
incomprehensible as a result) and, to a lesser extent, in "The Land of
the Cyclops" (which I did finish, and wrote up for IF-Review). My
guess, therefore, is that these games are not badly written or
unplayable, but that the way in which the player is expected to
interact is *different* in the Italian community. It is quite
intriguing to me that different language communities might develop
fundamentally different approaches into IF. When I play IF of Italian
origin, I am more than usually aware that I am *reading*; I find
myself thinking of one of those slender, expensive white paperbacks,
like an edition of Calvino.
The game comes with a read-me file, which not only explains how to
play but provides some background to the game's concept. I read
through this, though I had a bit of trouble, again, with the
translation. This read-me speaks of the use of rhetorical imagery, of
an expectation that the player will enter into the game and understand
it in terms of this symbolism; to interact with it, in other words, at
the level of literature, rather than at the level of simulation.
So I'm forced to conclude, I think, that I'm not a very good player
for this kind of IF. It confuses me, and it turns aside my attempts
to play in the ways I'm used to. But possibly there are other people
who will find it more accessible, especially if some of the technical
issues in the prose are repaired. And if the mental switch can be
made, the results may be an entirely unfamiliar and novel IF
experience.
-- Emily
Adrien Beau
>
> The punctuation is also messy -- by which I mean not just the
> run-on sentences, which I take to be an intentional sign of the
> stream-of-consciousness narrative, but the fact that the periods
> are consistently outside quotation marks when they should be
> inside.
I prefer to use the word "messy" for a punctiation that is
inconsistent (e.g., with periods alternatively inside and outside
quotes).
In the present case, I would rather say that punctuation is one
thing they forgot to translate.
I can only speak for French, but apart from putting periods
outside quotation, we also put one space before question marks,
exclamation marks, semicolons and colons.
I have no problem switching from one standard to another, but it
took me some time before I felt comfortable with both, and before
I stopped making mistakes.
--
spam....@free.fr
You have my name and my hostname: you can mail me.
(Put a period between my first and last names).
(boa13? A nickname I didn't intend to use here).
Giovanni Riccardi
"Natalie" by Fabrizio Venerandi also tend to conform to a different set of
expectations than other Italian games. Even if the objectives are different,
both these pieces of IF are experiments.
Cyclops is an adaptation from the Classics. Natalie is an original work in
which the author tries to use different perspectives in narration and
interaction. In the beginning the player communicates in some way with the
main character, in the end you are the main character then you have to type
commands in first person. I don't know how Fabrizio translated this into
English (I played the Italian version), but I think it is not simply a
change in how you interact with the game, it also add some elements to
narration.
At this point, I think we also have to consider the differences between
Italian and English (not related with the translation).
Italian is richer than English in verbal forms in the sense that the person
who perform an action is implicit in the verb. In English you have to
include the pronoun:
"take the book" ---> the usual IF command (imperative verb)
"I take the book" ---> first person (it doesn't seem an usual IF command)
In italian the "io" (I) pronoun can be omitted:
"prendi il libro" ---> the usual IF command (imperative verb)
"prendo il libro" ---> first person command
So we have some kind of "first person imperative verbs" which you can use as
commands in a piece of IF like Natalie.
Giovanni
ems...@mindspring.com
> Maybe a good news for you: "The Land of Cyclops" by Francesco Cordella and
> "Natalie" by Fabrizio Venerandi also tend to conform to a different set of
> expectations than other Italian games. Even if the objectives are different,
> both these pieces of IF are experiments.
> Cyclops is an adaptation from the Classics. Natalie is an original work in
> which the author tries to use different perspectives in narration and
> interaction. In the beginning the player communicates in some way with the
> main character, in the end you are the main character then you have to type
> commands in first person. I don't know how Fabrizio translated this into
> English (I played the Italian version), but I think it is not simply a
> change in how you interact with the game, it also add some elements to
> narration.
True, I am commenting on a very small base of data.
Well, what do you think, then? This is a question I'm curious about
in general. If you've played games in multiple languages, did you find
that games from different communities were different in play *style*
as well as the content of the language?
And, on a related note, if the examples I quoted are all experimental
Italian IF, are there any more mainstream works that have been
translated into English? Now I'm curious whether they would also seem
different to me.
> Italian is richer than English in verbal forms in the sense that the person
> who perform an action is implicit in the verb. In English you have to
> include the pronoun:
>
> "take the book" ---> the usual IF command (imperative verb)
> "I take the book" ---> first person (it doesn't seem an usual IF command)
>
> In italian the "io" (I) pronoun can be omitted:
>
> "prendi il libro" ---> the usual IF command (imperative verb)
> "prendo il libro" ---> first person command
>
> So we have some kind of "first person imperative verbs" which you can use as
> commands in a piece of IF like Natalie.
I'd had the impression from the included notes that something like
that was going on in the Italian version.
Billy Bissette
> Combined with this is a quality that reads, in English, as
> self-consciously literary, whether or not it feels that way in
> Italian. It draws attention to itself as a piece of written text, and
> to the process of reading it. And this goes counter to my own
> inclinations for IF writing. I tend to think that the purpose of IF
> text, in English, is generally to provide a near-transparent access to
> the world model: to concentrate the player's attention on what is, to
> create a sense of physical presence and of existing in a tangible
> location. There are exceptions; "Moonlit Tower" is consciously artful
> in its writing, but I found that fit perfectly the precious, wrought
> qualities of the game world itself, and I wasn't particularly
> bothered.
I'm a casual IF player. Played games "back in the day" like Adventure
and others. Occassionally play a few games still. Sometimes the art
pieces to see how they do. Sometimes a few puzzles. Sometimes a few
experiences. English is the native language, and it is spoken with the
degree of quality that marks an American education. :p
You mention a few times the difference between what you assume are
Italian conventions and what you know as the current English conventions,
and how you think it might be an issue? Such as above, where the writing
makes you believe you are reading writing, which takes you out of the
experience?
Speaking from the perspective of a casual IF player (and one who has
not played this translation either), I find that several of the established
English conventions tend to often take me out of the experience as well.
Things that the current IF writers wouldn't complain about, or might even
complain about the absence of. At the same time, I can sometimes things
frowned upon by current conventions to be more immersive than the supposed
currently "approved" method.
All in all, I would suppose that it is your immersion into the current
English conventions that might be clouding your experience with a piece
written to a different set of conventions. (Or it could just be the
translation. :) )
Mike Roberts
> Italian is richer than English in verbal forms in the sense that
> the person who perform an action is implicit in the verb. In
> English you have to include the pronoun:
Well, this isn't really a matter of "richness"; it's just a syntax
variation. English has the same verb form, but it takes two words in
English.
> "prendi il libro" ---> the usual IF command (imperative verb)
> "prendo il libro" ---> first person command
>
> So we have some kind of "first person imperative verbs" which
> you can use as commands in a piece of IF like Natalie.
Iin that case, shouldn't the English translation of Natalie recognize the
two verb forms as well?
--Mike
mjr underscore at hotmail dot com
fabrizio venerandi
> Here are some of my initial impressions on this game. [I am posting
first of all, thank you for the "unreview".
* about english
This is a beta english version of natalie: beta not for the game, but
for the english. The man who did the translation made his best, but he
is not a english-native, so there is much work to do.
As you can see reading this message, I have not a good english, so I'll
try to find someone with a "red pencil" to do a more professional work.
* about the game
As giovanni riccardi said, in the first half of the game the player is
talking with the "character player", as two different men. So the player
uses imperative forms. After, the player found himself in the same place
of the "character player", so the parse changes: the player still talks
with the rebel "character player" using imperative forms, but he also
have to say what HE want to do, using the present form. Finally the
player sleep and dream: the parser change again, and now the player can
only see itself in the dream world made of crossroads.
* about the 'italian style'
there are 2 different schools in italy: a more "puzzle and explore", and
another more experimental and novellistic. Natalie, like francesco
cordella's flamel follows the last one.
forgive my bad english, and thank you again for the review.
f.
ems...@mindspring.com
> All in all, I would suppose that it is your immersion into the current
> English conventions that might be clouding your experience with a piece
> written to a different set of conventions. (Or it could just be the
> translation. :) )
Yes -- that was more or less my point. Having discerned that that may
be happening, however, I am fairly interested in the question of what
other approaches to IF are out there, what different communities
expect of the player, and so on.
I think the existence of conventions is more or less inevitable in any
art form that has developed a dedicated (if small) band of followers.
And I also think that, in IF, they make things easier: easier for the
player to get through the game, easier for the author to communicate
ways to make progress.
Lose those conventions, and you open up the possibility of some
interesting variations on IF, some explorations of the medium that
haven't been tried before. I think this is worth doing, but I also
recognize, and wanted to point out, that it demands more from the
player.
I can see the potential for this in Natalie, but it is very very
difficult for me to judge the quality of the effort, due to the
translation issues and the fact that I got stuck.
-- Emily
ems...@mindspring.com
>"ems...@mindspring.com" wrote:
>>
>> strongly at odds with the
>> conventional approach of English-language IF.
>>
>> I tend to think that the purpose of IF
>
>There we have the problems of "modern" English IF. At least a writer
>admits it has become conventional and self-centered.
If you can't quote a single intact sentence from the original post in
support of your response, you should probably take it as a sign that
you're misconstruing the author's intent.
Billy Bissette
> Billy Bissette <bai...@coastalnet.com> wrote...
>> All in all, I would suppose that it is your immersion into the
>> current
>> English conventions that might be clouding your experience with a
>> piece written to a different set of conventions. (Or it could just
>> be the translation. :) )
>
> Yes -- that was more or less my point.
I expected about as much, but you never know... :)
Note that I've removed the crosspost, as this isn't really about
Natalie at this point.
> I think the existence of conventions is more or less inevitable in any
> art form that has developed a dedicated (if small) band of followers.
True. And IF has a small enough fanbase these days that a niche form
could literally have a fanbase in the single digits.
> And I also think that, in IF, they make things easier: easier for the
> player to get through the game, easier for the author to communicate
> ways to make progress.
But it is only easier if you are familiar with those same conventions.
You've potentially experienced the alternative with Natalie. And I've
experienced it with several things I've played in the last year.
An example is the heavy use of "wait" these days. In the old days, if
a creator really wanted timed items, they simply had a move timer of some
sorts where nearly every command caused time to pass. "Wait" makes sense
there. But one of the conventions these days seems to be that such timed
games/events are to be discouraged. I can understand that attitude,
because they can be extremely annoying. But it has also lead to several
games that require you to "wait" to advance, and nothing else will work.
There is no feeling of time passing with any other command, and I would
tend to get quite frustrated before I would think to try "wait". (And
games that require multiple "waits" in a row can be even worse offenders
if they don't give a suitable response.) Anyone who stayed close to IF
over the years probably would have no problems realizing when they should
"wait" in any such game, as they've experienced how its been used through
each generation of game. I didn't, and can still have issues knowing when
to try waiting at times. It just isn't something that comes immediately
to mind, and it reminds me that I'm just playing a game when the only thing
that will advance even a couple of minutes is "wait".
In a similar vein, I find some of the mimesis conversations rather
interesting since I'm not really indoctrinated to the current conventions.
I see people saying one particular thing breaks mimesis while another
doesn't, and to me both do it to about the same degree.
> Lose those conventions, and you open up the possibility of some
> interesting variations on IF, some explorations of the medium that
> haven't been tried before. I think this is worth doing, but I also
> recognize, and wanted to point out, that it demands more from the
> player.
>
> I can see the potential for this in Natalie, but it is very very
> difficult for me to judge the quality of the effort, due to the
> translation issues and the fact that I got stuck.
Understandable. I wonder how much is due to the translation being
rough, and how much is due to the conventions being that much counter
to your own. *shrug* I assume you might give a more polished translation
another chance, if it is produced?
I hope my writing conventions don't differ enough that people dismiss
my posts by the way. :)
Mike Roberts
> [on "conventions"]
> An example is the heavy use of "wait" these days. [...] But
> one of the conventions these days seems to be that such timed
> games/events are to be discouraged. I can understand that
> attitude, because they can be extremely annoying. But it has
> also lead to several games that require you to "wait" to
> advance, and nothing else will work.
Um, not to call into question your whole thesis or anything, but I have this
feeling you've extrapolated a few unusual games into a "convention" that I
actually don't think exists. I haven't heard anyone propose such behavior
as desirable, let alone standard, and I can't even recall having encountered
it. I'd personally consider this WAIT behavior a bug, or a least a design
flaw. How many games are you talking about?
> In a similar vein, I find some of the mimesis conversations
> rather interesting since I'm not really indoctrinated to the
> current conventions. I see people saying one particular thing
> breaks mimesis while another doesn't, and to me both do it
> to about the same degree.
Some concrete examples might be useful here as well. But keep in mind that
"mimesis" is almost an anti-convention around here, in that no two people
seem to agree on the meaning of the word in an IF context; that might be all
you're seeing.
Ricardo SIGNES
...and then discarded it, quoting another part altogether.
--
rjbs
Gunther Schmidl
>> If you can't quote a single intact sentence from the original post in
>> support of your response, you should probably take it as a sign that
>> you're misconstruing the author's intent.
>
...or you're an ass.
*plonk*
-- g
Jdyer41
>"I take the book" ---> first person (it doesn't seem an usual IF command)
As has already been discussed on this newsgroup, at least some people
presume some version other than the imperative. One person mentioned they
imagined giving commands to a GM, in which case (I) take the book is
completely natural.
In summary, the methods of thinking were
(I want to) take the book
(I) take the book
(You) take the book
Also, for completeness, considering the use of "we" in Cyborg, commands
could also be thought of as
(I want us to) take the book
(We) take the book
(You [plural]) take the book
It's possible to force a certain way of thinking, like in the work of this
thread.
Oddly enough, though, rather than forcing the imperative way of thinking
(you are controlling a "puppet") it forces the infinitive way of thinking,
unless
you imagine your commands to be
(You who is controlling my body, tell Natalie to) take the book
rather than
(You, Natalie) take the book
Jason Dyer
jdy...@aol.com
James Glover
if.org> wrote:
> X-No-Archive: yes
> I knew that criticism was never much welcomed here, but it's dropping to
> a new low.
>
> Anyways, "Natalie" is a nice game. Live with it, no matter if it serves
> your precious "conventions."
>
> Marco
Except I think that the author of the review would know the point she was
trying to make. You may very well think that IF has fallen into a set of
constraints imposed by convention. (To a certain degree it's bound to, if
each piece operated on a new set of rules it would make it difficult for
the players. Standard authoring systems also imply constraints.) But if
that's not the point the writer of the review was trying to make then to
try and argue with her that that is what she meant is a little, errm, odd.
You are of course to free debate that the problems she experianced with the
game were more likely due to over familiarity with the conventions, but in
itself, defying conventions can sometimes be a bad move if it means the
game/story is difficult to follow by the players. (Although of course, the
game could theoreticaly be convntional when it comes to the audience for
whom it was written.)
You may very well think Natalie is the best game ever, but that is an
opinion. To say Emily Short is wrong to dislike the game is comparable to
me calling people wrong to like marmite. (To all the americans marmite is a
strong tasting spread made from (I think) vegetable extracts. It's quite an
aquired taste and thus the advertising slogan is 'Marmite, you either love
it or you hate it.' Although personaly I have met a couple of individuals
who think it's 'Okay' Persoanly I can't stand the stuff.)
--
James Glover
E-mail: ja...@jaspsplace.co.uk
Web: http://www.jaspsplace.co.uk
MSN: ja...@jaspsplace.co.uk
ICQ: 75440795
Jonathan Penton
news:oprqmlufb5i5ezju@localhost...
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 19:42:39 +0200, Marco Thorek <marco.george@infocom-
> if.org> wrote:
>
> > X-No-Archive: yes
> >
> > Gunther Schmidl wrote:
> >>
> >> Marco Thorek wrote:
> >> >> If you can't quote a single intact sentence from the original post
in
> >> >> support of your response, you should probably take it as a sign that
> >> >> you're misconstruing the author's intent.
> >> >
> >> > ...or I extracted the essence.
> >>
> >> ...or you're an ass.
> >
> > I knew that criticism was never much welcomed here, but it's dropping to
> > a new low.
> >
> > Anyways, "Natalie" is a nice game. Live with it, no matter if it serves
> > your precious "conventions."
> >
> > Marco
>
> Except I think that the author of the review would know the point she was
> trying to make. You may very well think that IF has fallen into a set of
> constraints imposed by convention. (To a certain degree it's bound to, if
> each piece operated on a new set of rules it would make it difficult for
> the players. Standard authoring systems also imply constraints.) But if
> that's not the point the writer of the review was trying to make then to
> try and argue with her that that is what she meant is a little, errm, odd.
I think it's unspeakably brilliant, and think we should have an annual Make
Emily Look Bad Comp, in which various trolls compete to cut, snip, and
rearrange her words in a fashion that causes her to admit that she's a child
molestor.
The winning post can NOT have that little header that removes posts from the
Google archive. That's a sissy way to troll, Marco.
(I hope it's clear that this post is sarcastic.)
> You are of course to free debate that the problems she experianced with
the
> game were more likely due to over familiarity with the conventions, but in
> itself, defying conventions can sometimes be a bad move if it means the
> game/story is difficult to follow by the players. (Although of course, the
> game could theoreticaly be convntional when it comes to the audience for
> whom it was written.)
>
> You may very well think Natalie is the best game ever, but that is an
> opinion. To say Emily Short is wrong to dislike the game is comparable to
> me calling people wrong to like marmite. (To all the americans marmite is
a
> strong tasting spread made from (I think) vegetable extracts. It's quite
an
> aquired taste and thus the advertising slogan is 'Marmite, you either love
> it or you hate it.' Although personaly I have met a couple of individuals
> who think it's 'Okay' Persoanly I can't stand the stuff.)
>
> --
> James Glover
> E-mail: ja...@jaspsplace.co.uk
> Web: http://www.jaspsplace.co.uk
> MSN: ja...@jaspsplace.co.uk
> ICQ: 75440795
--
Jonathan Penton
http://www.unlikelystories.org
Adam Thornton
Jonathan Penton <unli...@flash.net> wrote:
>I think it's unspeakably brilliant, and think we should have an annual Make
>Emily Look Bad Comp, in which various trolls compete to cut, snip, and
>rearrange her words in a fashion that causes her to admit that she's a child
>molestor.
I *also* want to be on the judging committee for this comp.
Adam
JJK
> ... is comparable
> to me calling people wrong to like marmite. (To all the americans
> marmite is a strong tasting spread made from (I think) vegetable
> extracts. It's quite an aquired taste and thus the advertising slogan is
> 'Marmite, you either love it or you hate it.' Although personaly I have
> met a couple of individuals who think it's 'Okay' Persoanly I can't
> stand the stuff.)
>
Marmite (which I thought was the scrapings of the brewers barrel
-really) is physical proof that there is no universal taste, that the
range of things that can become conventional is too huge to imagine.
And I mean that literally, because it is fascinating to me to discover
something that my cultural group takes for granted, never even thinks
about, is exotic or disgusting in another group. One of my most
memorable experiences was explaining to an Ashanti kid (in my bad Twi)
where milk powder came from. It started it out as milk, and then you
dry it out leaving only the solid parts. "But what is milk?" It comes
from a cow. "What is a cow?" You know, like the cattle that you can
see along the Accra-Kumasi road, but the female. "And this milk is
inside her?"(increduously). Yes, but you don't kill her and cut her
open, you reach underneath and pull her teats. The milk comes out in a
bucket. Then you drink it. And the look on his face as he realized
that of course I was pulling his leg, the good natured but uproarious
laughter as he contemplated the thought of walking up to a 1200 pound
animal, with sharp pointy horns, reaching underneath it and pulling on
its nether parts, then drinking what came out. And for one delicious
moment I was perfectly in his point of view and saw it exactly as he
did. I haven't had a glass of milk since then, fifteen years now.
If there was any point to this other than my ramblings, it was that I
thought we were going to have a great cross cultural discussion about
differences in conventions and am disappointed it turned into yet
another "You're a jerk", "Oh year, well you're a double double jerk" thread.
Milk. Blech.
-Jim
ems...@mindspring.com
>I knew that criticism was never much welcomed here, but it's dropping
to
>a new low.
>Anyways, "Natalie" is a nice game. Live with it, no matter if it
serves
>your precious "conventions."
I went back through my original post. Let me summarize it paragraph
by paragraph:
1. I was asked to have a look at this game, Natalie.
2. It looks pretty interesting and does some things that haven't been
played out fully in the English community, either.
3. I found it somewhat challenging to play.
4. The translation and punctuation are possibly largely to blame for
this, and could easily be fixed.
5. In addition, I note that the game takes a different approach to
communicating with the player than other IF with which I am familiar
(which, given my limited ability in the other languages used for IF,
is necessarily mostly in English).
6. This approach seems to be more impressionistic and to place less
emphasis on the world model per se, and more on the actual text of the
game.
7. This is a different approach than the one I take when I myself am
writing.
8. Furthermore, I found the puzzles tricky.
9. I wonder whether these things indicate that there is, overall, a
different common approach to Italian IF than there is to English IF.
10. I am intrigued by this possibility and would like to discuss it
further, if anyone has anything to suggest about it.
11. The fact that I had a hard time with this game probably says as
much about me as it does about the game, which would probably be a
rewarding thing to play for anyone who can get into the mindset.
Now, this may not be anything stunning in the realm of literary
criticism, but nowhere did I say any of the things that you're
implying I said: a) that Natalie is bad; or b) that games must follow
English IF conventions; or c) that English-language IF is conventional
in a bad sense. (You may think this is true, but I didn't say so.)
All I said was that since Natalie doesn't follow those conventions in
certain respects, I found it more difficult to get through, which
reflects more on me and my expectations than on it or its author.
[FWIW, I think the emergence of *some* convention is more or less
inevitable in any medium. Language and symbolism are themselves only
meaningful because the community of readers/speakers agree to
understand certain words in a certain way; and in a work that depends
heavily on the participation and action of the audience, it is useful
if the game communicates to the player how to play. So a system of
cues and clues has developed, many of them fairly subtle. Items
placed in their own paragraph draw the player's attention, for
instance. Items described extensively are more likely to be important.
These are conventions, yes, but I think they're fairly unrestrictive
of the author's originality. But, as with language itself, it is of
course possible to develop or invent a different set than the one
we're familiar with. I find that possibility intriguing for IF, since
it suggests there might be techniques and approaches we've never even
thought of.]
If you want to shed useful light on the good features of foreign
language IF, then this is a great place to do so by talking in more
detail about what other language communities have done with their IF
that the English-language community has never even tried, or by
discussing in more detail what you enjoyed in Natalie. I'm
interested, and I'm sure the game's author would be very happy to see
you elaborate on your praise.
-- Emily
Aaron Krochmal
"To say that it [So Far] relies on symbolic vocabulary is to
understate the issue. Jigsaw, for instance, relies on symbolic
vocabulary as well, especially in the endgame. But Nelson's symbols
are isolated and recognizable, and stand out from the landscape in
their symbolic significance like a girl in a red dress. 'Note this!'
they say. And they are organized with a tidy symmetry, perfect and
mathematical, so that the meaning of anything unexplained may be
worked out by its relations to other symbols and the oppositions
between them. Plotkin's symbolism is merged wholly with the landscape;
it *is* the landscape. The pieces are polyvalent and connotative, any
given thing suggesting an array of connections and meanings, not
denoting a single concept in its purity."
Anyone who writes this kind of prose, and at the same time complains
about other people's prose being overly emotional and unspecific,
doesn't need trolls to make her look ludicrous.
Add to that the fact that she's stung by any form of criticism and
keeps a retinue of trusty followers who insult anyone who doesn't
kneel before her Better Judgement, and you've got the most magnificent
trollbait since the times of Magnus the Unwell.
28 IF
>Anyone who writes this kind of prose, and at the same time complains
>about other people's prose being overly emotional and unspecific,
>doesn't need trolls to make her look ludicrous.
>
>Add to that the fact that she's stung by any form of criticism and
>keeps a retinue of trusty followers who insult anyone who doesn't
>kneel before her Better Judgement, and you've got the most magnificent
>trollbait since the times of Magnus the Unwell.
You know, of all the people there are on Usenet to be offended by, I don't
particularly understand why you happened to choose Emily.
William Burke
28 IF <dogw...@frostwarning.com> wrote:
> Aaron Krochmal come on down:
<but it is gone!>
please don't feed the trolls.
--p
Nikos Chantziaras
> [...]
> You know, of all the people there are on Usenet to be offended by,
> I don't particularly understand why you happened to choose Emily.
Lack of respect, I guess. Or maybe he/she is pissed-off by the fact that
his/her biggest efforts can only compare to Emily's "hello world" projects
she wrote at the age of 5.
-- Niko <realnc--(AT)--lycos--(DOT)--de>