Language Support / Campain Length

[Draco18s]

Besides, why.does ai war classic even have so much text?

There was no story. Did it have 35k units with 100 words decription each? As I said the problem is seen here. If you have so much text in a game without a story something is wrong.

Maybe compress unitbdescription?

You'd be surprised.

Each unit (over 120) had short descriptions, plus there's all the story-log files (for the various "campaigns") all of the AI taunts, UI elements, etc. etc. etc.

It adds up fast.

[Aklyon]

Faster than I'd expect, it sounds like. 35k in 3.0?

[kasnavada]

He has a point there.

The game could be design to convey a large part of its information with a lot less text, and would probably be clearer as a result.

[Cinth]

He has a point there.

The game could be design to convey a large part of its information with a lot less text, and would probably be clearer as a result.

It's been a long stated goal to reduce the clutter and increase the clarity.  Even the sample tooltips shown (they are on the KS page) are a lot leaner than the tips form Classic.

[kasnavada]

It's been a long stated goal to reduce the clutter and increase the clarity.  Even the sample tooltips shown (they are on the KS page) are a lot leaner than the tips form Classic.

Hum... yes.... but... Are you really speaking about the point I was trying to make ? Are we seeing the same tooltips ? My point is that it's all text ! I agree that the proposed presentation is leaner than the old one, but it's completely irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make. For example, the heavy beam cannon that's proeminently shown on the KS page. There's is not even a single icon on it, except if you want to call the explanation mark an icon. And, a lot of the reduced clutter amounts to the new "objects" having less properties than the old one. Not UI changes.

A large amount of text could be cut from this window:
=> health, attack, range, reload, power, build time, ship cap, engine health => All should be icons, with advanced longer description in a pop-up when howering. And, by the way, an hover-up description of each stat is kind of mandatory if you want the UI to be labelled as good.
=> title: "player" mention should be replaced by an icon representing the player.
=> The icon that represents the unit should be in this window. Also, the title of the pop-up should picture the unit icon.
=> requires supply: an icon for this should be enough. Also, I'd propose to use an icon to represent supply when present on a planet / on the main galaxy map.
=> Click to expand: a single "+" icon on a corner is enough to convey the same idea.
=> Description should be shorter there, 10 words at most. If a unit can't be explained in 10 words, then the user can click on the + icon referenced above, which will display advanced (longer) description.

Applying similar ideas to the whole game would increase clarity and reduce text amount by a lot. On a side note, even if you don't remove the text part, icons should be added. Removing text / adding more icons will increase accessibility by foreign readers.

[Tridus]

A large amount of text could be cut from this window:
=> health, attack, range, reload, power, build time, ship cap, engine health => All should be icons, with advanced longer description in a pop-up when howering. And, by the way, an hover-up description of each stat is kind of mandatory if you want the UI to be labelled as good.
=> title: "player" mention should be replaced by an icon representing the player.
=> The icon that represents the unit should be in this window. Also, the title of the pop-up should picture the unit icon.
=> requires supply: an icon for this should be enough. Also, I'd propose to use an icon to represent supply when present on a planet / on the main galaxy map.
=> Click to expand: a single "+" icon on a corner is enough to convey the same idea.

All of those changes combined would result in eliminating fewer words than the tooltip explaining what a Design Backup Server does.

The real bulk of the text is in those descriptions. There's no way to come up with an icon that explains that stuff, because it requires an actual explanation. You either shorten those up enough that people have to go looking externally to find out, or you simplify the concepts and chop stuff so you need fewer words.

[kasnavada]

The real bulk of the text is in those descriptions. (and the rest)

Oh, I completely agree with that part. Cutting down on the large amount of descriptions to make them shorter, leaner and more comprehensive is good, but if you need to go to an external site, it's pointless. What I'm thinking here is that some of the concepts that require experimentation and / or walls of text to understand need to go away. Another thing, the current game currently HAS those pages of stuff explaining everything and I think a lot of people agree that an external source's needed to understand the game. So, even without taking into consideration my post, failing for failing, I'd rather run on the "more international" route.

But, I've not been stressing this part in my post because it's already the direction that Chris is going to in the design doc. At least that's how I understand it.

PS: and if you actually want to see how to explain advanced concepts with icons, a lot of the board games produced recently only have text in the rulebook (basically, a wiki in video game term), and are completely icon-based otherwise. Most manage to keep icons at a minimum. I'm actually surprised at how much non-written communication manages to pass complex messages, and create / enable complex game mechanics anyway. That said, I disgress.

[Cinth]

it's completely irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make

We are talking about the amount of text in the game  (translation purposes).

advanced longer description in a pop-up when howering

Even if you replace every stat with an icon and have a hover pop up for it, you don't reduce the amount of text.
If you have advanced tool tips, you don't reduce the amount of text.

By the way, replacing everything with icons means memorizing what all those icons are in addition to the stats behind them.  It also adds a ton of work because iconography isn't easy.

a lot of the board games produced recently only have text in the rulebook (basically, a wiki in video game term), and are completely icon-based otherwise.

if you need to go to an external site, it's pointless

Going to be nit-picky here, but having to go to the rule book to figure out what an icon does is just like hitting up an external site to figure something out.

[Tridus]

The real bulk of the text is in those descriptions. (and the rest)

Oh, I completely agree with that part. Cutting down on the large amount of descriptions to make them shorter, leaner and more comprehensive is good, but if you need to go to an external site, it's pointless. What I'm thinking here is that some of the concepts that require experimentation and / or walls of text to understand need to go away. Another thing, the current game currently HAS those pages of stuff explaining everything and I think a lot of people agree that an external source's needed to understand the game. So, even without taking into consideration my post, failing for failing, I'd rather run on the "more international" route.

*nod*

I don't think replacing "Health" with a heart icon or some such is a bad idea, either. Some of the concepts used are standard in so many games that there's simple icons that everyone is going to recognize immediately. It would tighten up the space used and make things easier to read, even if it doesn't save a ton of words.

But, I've not been stressing this part in my post because it's already the direction that Chris is going to in the design doc. At least that's how I understand it.

I believe so as well.

PS: and if you actually want to see how to explain advanced concepts with icons, a lot of the board games produced recently only have text in the rulebook (basically, a wiki in video game term), and are completely icon-based otherwise. Most manage to keep icons at a minimum. I'm actually surprised at how much non-written communication manages to pass complex messages, and create / enable complex game mechanics anyway. That said, I disgress.

Magic: The Gathering and other card games do that as well. The reason is that space is at a premium on the cards themselves, and the rulebook can explain those things. It doesn't save a ton of words either, it just moves them to a place that's easier to print and reference.

[tadrinth]

Also going to point out that AIWC has a lot of stuff that's only documented in the wiki or patch notes; you'd have to translate those too. 

[iob]

Replacing Text with icons isn't realy the problem. Ai War doesnt really have *that much* Text imho that is relevenat that needs to be tranlated.

Lets say each unit has a speed - thats one word to translate, even if every unit has a different speed. All the really relevant text might be special units that behave totally different - but if thats the case, you should translate it once and thats that  - if you don't alter the mechanic of that unit drasticlly.

I just booted up the game, and I can see 58 tips of the day. Thats probably 2000 words just there.

Not sure how much they change, but yeah.

I jhust checked costs, 35k words cost like 2000 to 4000 bucks. Thats like 1 months of work? Yeah, sure, you will have to develop with this in mind and probably have to differentiate in text that changes and text that stays the same.


But... the developer already stated that it's too much hassle and he'd rather not be able to sell this game in france, germany, italy and so on.... You don't really have to be perfect with each translation, like blizzard has had bugs in alsmost every german patch when they changed stuff .

And if they can't do it...

I think i once downloaded a fan translate for AI war but it was either not working or the text wasn't fitting the textboxses anymore. Might have to try again.




Btw, you don't have to translate a wiki - let the fans make their own if they need one. Patch notes, yeah, you will have to do that. I am just saying that the cost / reward for this game - if dont right - is a no brainer. Lets say you add 1% costs per language support - but you open up 20-40% more potential buyers.

And if this game somehow is "untranslateable" then probably something went very very wrong, as other strategy games are translatable. I think even the stellaris game got translated and for sure that one has more text than ai war.

[iob]

And I just want to point out that I backed AI War 2 and I personally don't care if it gets translated or a good lan support.

But I find it highly a pity that I can't play 1 it with friends on lan because they can't understand it and because it wasn't made with lan parties in mind, where you play a game 3 hours TOPS and then have to take a break.

Well let's see, maybe the AI War 2 will be a game for TD fans after all .

[Logorouge]

I just checked costs, 35k words cost like 2000 to 4000 bucks. Thats like 1 months of work? Yeah, sure, you will have to develop with this in mind and probably have to differentiate in text that changes and text that stays the same.


But... the developer already stated that it's too much hassle and he'd rather not be able to sell this game in france, germany, italy and so on....

Two questions:
-Where's the monthly maintenance cost in that estimate?
-Why is it only for one language? (French, judging by the cost.)

[iob]

-Where's the monthly maintenance cost in that estimate?

I am not in the game business. But if you don't change your units dramatically, there won't be any "monthly maintenance costs" for a translation. You also dont need monthly maintenance costs for english descriptions?

-Why is it only for one language? (French, judging by the cost.)

Because it's an example? I don't know the sales of ai war at the countries - chris just said that germany was the largest market besides the english countries if I understood right? I would *guess* that german, french and spanish are worhtwhile. Maybe even polish and russian. But i just don't know.

You also have to factor in 2 things here. First: If someone in poland buys the english version and has 3 non english friends who would love to play this with him, they won't buy if it's NOT in polish. So it's hard to guess how hard missing language support really blocks sales.

Second, how often does the description even alter? If you alter your units on a monthly basis, of course it's very hard to do this externally. The overhead is just insane.

THat being said, i played salt and sanctuary yesterday and the translation really is horrible . They probably used google translate.

I also booted up ai war classic again. That game did not age well i have to say. But we all know that .

Its become as super hardcore game for hardcore gamers where you need 20 hours to grasp the basics with all expansions.

[Dominus Arbitrationis]

The monthly maintenance cost comes from the need to have a translator available 24/7 if we want to release patches in all languages at the same time. If we stagger them, then it isn't such a big deal,  but then our German customers are pissed off because they're getting the short end of the stick.

While you're right in that most text doesn't change, there is a substantial amount of text that does end up changing. What happens when we add a new unit? When we change the function of an existing unit?

The most cost effective solution  that I have come across is crowdsourced translation. Problem is, that's expensive as hell and I can't find any open source packages that do that. Maybe Weblate, Pootle, or Zanata do it, but for the most part they just let the community translate the games, which is nice, don't get me wrong. But that requires enough people to constantly keep the translation up to date and make sure someone isn't purposely screwing it up.