Rob Murray Posted October 15, 2002 Share Posted October 15, 2002 While I really appreciate the time & effort people put in to designing scenarios for the game; I think that some people should check their spelling before submitting a scenario. I got one today and the briefing was just loaded with spelling errors ( ie. totally spelled tottally, etc. ) It wrecks an otherwise good effort on that person's part. I know this sounds prissy but good spelling adds to the enjoyment of the game ( makes it more authentic ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Weiss Posted October 15, 2002 Share Posted October 15, 2002 You kin say dat agin. Dey juss ortta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnersman Posted October 15, 2002 Share Posted October 15, 2002 Yer darn tootin! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted October 15, 2002 Share Posted October 15, 2002 Believe me, they tried. I've written stuff that I've checked and rechecked and RE-rechecked, only to find years after its gone to print that I had left in double words or some such stupid error. Grrr...!!! But considering that more than one scenario opener had been composed by someone writing in a language not his own, I think they did pretty darned good. Hell, they did better than most U.S. college freshmen would've! And let's not forget, much of the English is spelled that way because Shakespeare was just makin' up the spelling as he went! So excuse me, I must my fardels bear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
**YK2** Posted October 15, 2002 Share Posted October 15, 2002 Arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Did I spell that right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted October 15, 2002 Share Posted October 15, 2002 Originally posted by YK2: Arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Did I spell that right? No, but what were the odds that you would? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter tilbury Posted October 15, 2002 Share Posted October 15, 2002 There are a welter of spelling mistakes in the manaul as well as actual CM2 German version which should have been picked up at the proof-reading stage (Briese for example in the template), but computer games abound with poor proof-reading so if the experts can't get it right... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
**YK2** Posted October 15, 2002 Share Posted October 15, 2002 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by YK2: Arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Did I spell that right? No, but what were the odds that you would?</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Weiss Posted October 15, 2002 Share Posted October 15, 2002 Aww it's so nice to see that Michael finally made a friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eden Smallwood Posted October 15, 2002 Share Posted October 15, 2002 Originally posted by MikeyD: I've written stuff that I've checked and rechecked and RE-rechecked, only to find years after its gone to print that I had left in double words or some such stupid error. Grrr...!!!Then that's not your particular flair. Why not recognize that and start a new trend? Post it here, with a subject like: "Sinario Breifing Ruff Draft, Plez ProofReed", and all of us over-inflated English buffs will jump at the opportunity to help. The non-English speaker Trojan horse camouflage in subject line is optional. Esprit de Corps, n'est-ce pas? Eden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Carr Posted October 15, 2002 Share Posted October 15, 2002 Bad Spellers of the World Untie! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 15, 2002 Share Posted October 15, 2002 Originally posted by Jack Carr: Bad Spellers of the World Untie![extremely heavy sarcasm] Oh, how blazingly original! [/extremely heavy sarcasm] Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted October 15, 2002 Share Posted October 15, 2002 Originally posted by YK2: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by YK2: Arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Did I spell that right? No, but what were the odds that you would?</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BirdGunner Posted October 15, 2002 Share Posted October 15, 2002 Of course that then brings up the question which is correct?? American English spelling, or British English spelling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bannon DC Posted October 16, 2002 Share Posted October 16, 2002 I read that they misspelled words during WWII as well. So, in some cases, it is historically accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted October 16, 2002 Share Posted October 16, 2002 Originally posted by pt: There are a welter of spelling mistakes in the manaul as well as actual CM2 German version which should have been picked up at the proof-reading stage (Briese for example in the template), but computer games abound with poor proof-reading so if the experts can't get it right...Not really a welter, but there are some in the English manual too. Only to be expected really, given the size of it. Of more import, IMHO, is the seeming transposition of the meanings for "cover' and 'concealment.' In my experience 'cover' means protection from swiftly moving chunks of metal, while 'concealment' means can't be seen. I'm pretty sure that these definitions have been reversed in the manual. (I don't have the manual on me right now, so I can't check.) Regards JonS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knaust Posted October 16, 2002 Share Posted October 16, 2002 spelling???...what's that? :eek: as English is going to be more and more the universal language, correct spelling will be lost how about artillary instead of artillery...or it's for its? last but not least...I beg your pardon for my spelling...I'm not an English-speaking man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter tilbury Posted October 16, 2002 Share Posted October 16, 2002 JonS: I translate and proof-read for a living. I took a random couple of pages from the German manual and found several mistakes per page. BAd luck perhaps? I'm sorry but where I come from that is a welter. If I produced Annual Reports like that the company wouldn't give me another contract assuming they had the good sense to get it proofread by another translator or proofreader. When I used to work in a translation department we would ring the translator up and harange him or her if there were just several errors in a similar sized text as it shows that it has not been checked for simple spelling mistakes. Size of text has nothing to do with it, professionalism does - I've proofread annual reports of over a hundred pages with perhaps one minor error - that text has been reread beforehand, that's quality, that's professional. But this is the industry as a whole and is no snipe at anybody here but you would agree I think it detracts from the whole. I've even purchased games here in Germany where a whole chunk of English suddenly appears amongst the German because the translator simply missed it out. It shows it has been done in a rush, the translator didn't or wasn't allowed to check it, and nobody proof-read it. Whether UK English or US English depends on the policy of the company there is even a Mid-Atlantic English that is very often used by companies here to hedge their bets. Most people wouldn't realise what the difference is in many cases - percent=US per cent= UK; a US billion is not really a UK billion but we have all accepted it as such; realise = UK but realize is UK and US etc.- but believe me there is US and UK English and just plain wrong. [ October 16, 2002, 03:46 AM: Message edited by: pt ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted October 16, 2002 Share Posted October 16, 2002 pt, we're talking about different things - I have the English (well, US really) version, and found maybe half a dozen typos in total. I'm not disputing your findings, merely pointing out that in the copy of the manual I got, there wasn't a welter (metric or imperial) Be cool JonS [ October 16, 2002, 03:52 AM: Message edited by: JonS ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter tilbury Posted October 16, 2002 Share Posted October 16, 2002 JonS, I don't believe we diverge too much. I am talking about the quality of written material; this material can be translated (requiring an extra layer of quality control) or original English. It must be me then, but a dozen mistakes is bad isn't it? If I can read a six-hundred page novel and find (n)one and this on a regular basis, a dozen strikes me as shoddy quality control. Again I'm not singling out battlefront or anything, the nature of the business seems to generate this type of workmanship. I would suggest that you do not consider it bad because the standard of manuals in the computer game industry is generally poor - can we concur on that. I suppose in the same way that we have come to accept that all games will be patched to the hilt at some point to iron out bugs - the ripe banana issue - therefore just a dozen mistakes seems ok. [ October 16, 2002, 07:02 AM: Message edited by: pt ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-E Posted October 16, 2002 Share Posted October 16, 2002 Isn't "welter" a measurement of speed in some tribes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted October 16, 2002 Share Posted October 16, 2002 pt, I did say half a dozen, so you're making it out to be twice as bad as it is Also, it would seem that a lot more entered during translation into German. Still, I do agree with your general point. And yes, I do remember thinking "well, there are a few, but for a technical game manual its pretty good." i.e. I qualified it to myself as being okay in its field. But, something to consider ... when you buy a novel you are buying the words and the story, and so typos are much more noticebale and unacceptable. In a game manual, which is afer all a supplement to the main product (the game) they can pass without comment. Oops - too late for that now [ October 16, 2002, 07:22 AM: Message edited by: JonS ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter tilbury Posted October 16, 2002 Share Posted October 16, 2002 JonS: first of all I am not arguing with you in any way or form. And if you like I can take back the word welter which seems to be taking a bizarre turn on the thread and any other infelidelities on my part. I would return to the point that the industry accepts a certain level of shoddy workmanship in the production of written material. My assumption is, like you, that it is not considered a core part of the business and takes a back seat to the product rather than being considered an integral part, hence it's reduction, pdf-ing and probably eventual demise. I mention translation again now, although I have the feeling that this is what happens in the original too. A text is produced and then as an afterthought somebody says they need it translated. They get hold of anybody, undertake no quality control of their own because they are unacquainted with the problems involved and you get, in my opinion, a qualitively poorer product. Some/many original English manuals I have for games also smack of midnight oil or afterthought and seem thrown together; this need not be the case, however: the FC2 manual is a sound piece of work, but in those days perhaps the product cycle time was lower. The bottom line is I pay for a product and what this product contains, in my opinion, is an integral part of the product. At the moment I can buy a game that has a poor manual and needs patching - hardly an ideal "gaming experience". When I buy a novel I buy the story, the binding, the spelling - everything that adds to the "reading experience". I just imagine the novel in my example has been properly proof-read with a suitable amount of lead-in time - that is the be all and end all of the story. We all make mistakes; I have just translated a welcoming speech for a company president, I'm getting it checked and there be things in it that I haven't picked up. [ October 16, 2002, 07:41 AM: Message edited by: pt ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted October 16, 2002 Share Posted October 16, 2002 It's not just a matter of the manual not being the "main product", it is a statement on how much attention and care was given to the product as a whole - manual included. A sloppy manual doesn't exactly fill the consumer with confidence, though Jon has a point - really, once the manual is in the hands of the purchaser, there is no more selling to do. Word of mouth, boxtop art, online reviews, and the downloadable demo are what have sold the product. Nonetheless, I am of the opinion that there is no excuse for even half a dozen typos in a printed manual. There are many examples of computer manuals that have no typographical errors at all - it is certainly not to be expected in any way. The fact you are discussing it at all kind of points to how unexpected it is, really. I can speak from experience; my second book is replete with a half dozen or so typos also. The excuse? There is none - it suffered from too few proofreaders and not enough readings. Given the size of the CM community and the number of willing beta testers - even if it was just a case of asking for volunteers to read scenario briefings - this didn't have to be an issue. In my own case, I would have far preferred to have gone to press without any errors at all, and don't blame others for putting the book down because of them. The spelling errors in the scenario briefings themselves also speak to a rushed product. I have no complaints with CMBB, myself, but these typos are a bit of a red flag which would make one wonder what else didn't get picked up - especially in a game where the calculations etc. are hidden. It may well be that such a typo is responsible for, say, the perceived "concealment" bug with regards to wheatfields, for example, or we may find that a particular AFV model's armour has been incorrectly coded making it dramatically more vulnerable (or invulnerable) than the case may be. And stuff like that doesn't crop up immediately - how long was it before the FlaK truck syndrome in CMBO was reported? Probably not on the day of release anyway. It's also not a great way to sell the game to people who aren't convinced (as us fanboys already are) of the value of this game. The typos in the demo scenario briefings were unfortunate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pascal DI FOLCO Posted October 16, 2002 Share Posted October 16, 2002 I Pete ! Whad'za heck with yor "welter" of errors ? I'd learn a new term today, what's a "welter" ?? Anyway you should be happy of not having suffered French translations of some manuals, the "all your bases are belong to us" sort is very common .. And frankly, this thread only deserves to be burned, as an Archer of yours ! See ya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts