Newsgroup: it.comp.giochi.avventure.testuali
Titolo: [Unreview] English translation of Natalie

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

 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).

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.
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

 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.

 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.  :) )

 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

 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.

 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

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.

 ...or I extracted the essence.
...and then discarded it, quoting another part altogether.
-- 
rjbs

 ...or I extracted the essence.
...or you're an ass.
*plonk*
-- g

 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