Op-Ed: Localization vs. 'Localterization' in Video Games

Video game localization is a crucial component for Japanese games as it enables a mutual relationship between western consumers and Japanese publishers. The games can reach out to a wider pool of potential buyers while the customers have a larger array to titles to choose from. However, localization is not a simple task as translating Japanese is tricky. Certain jokes and idioms will not make sense if directly translated. In those kinds of situations, it is best to come up with a different joke or phrase of similar tone, as explained by publisher XSEED Games.

Unfortunately, not all localization teams do this. In fact, far too often, they do not translate certain Japanese phrases and instead replace them with ones that have an entirely different tone and intent. Here is a good example from Xenoblade Chronicles X, where the localized text is on the left, original text in the center, and proper translation on the right. A few lines were even removed completely.

Localized vs. translated text from Xenoblade Chronicles X

This problem has occurred on other games like Bravely Second, Fire Emblem Fates, Tales of Hearts R, and Tokyo Mirage Sessions #FE.

Furthermore, shoddy localization stems far more than just butchered translations. There have been many games, especially Nintendo published games, where the content is altered or ripped out from the original Japanese release. The petting minigame in Fire Emblem Fates is absent in the European and American releases. Tokyo Mirage Sessions #FE was hit rather hard by Nintendo of America's censorship. Cleavage and skin were covered up, a swimsuit costume was changed to street clothes, hip bones were removed, and the hot springs DLC was omitted.

These types of 'localterization' practices can break a consumer's enthusiasm for a game. While there are those gamers who will pan the camera under a character's skirt or swap out the default armor for a bikini, there are those who abide by the principle that a creator's work should never be altered. There is also the notion that censorship is condescending, where localization teams think the audience cannot handle the uncensored material and claim to "know what's best for you" without asking for consumer feedback. This infantilizing attitude perceived by consumers dissuade them from buying a game publisher's product, which negatively affects earned revenue.

What exacerbates the situation is that some people defend these practices, claiming that they are par of the course when it comes to localization. However, many other publishers such as XSEED, PQube, and Idea Factory are able to localize their games without any difficulties in spite of having content that may be a bit lewd. Localization should be merely translating the Japanese language to western languages, conserving the tone and intent when certain phrases cannot be directly translated. Censorship, removed content, and shoddy translations are not localization, but rather 'localterization'. A childish play of words, but the term makes the point succinctly. 'Localterization' is where publishers alter the content and tout it as localization when it really is a perfect example of what not to do when localizing a game.

How the Left lost the 2016 Presidential Election (Part II): Political Correctness and the Shame Game

Political correctness has been at the forefront of multiple facets of society, from education to politics to activism. The left (or more specifically, the authoritarian left) has argued for political correctness because it avoids offending and marginalizing certain groups of people. On the other hand, the right and part of the left, particularly the libertarian groups of both sides, have expressed their dislike of the philosophy. Former comedian George Carlin described political correctness as "fascism pretending to be manners" and he is not off.

PC culture has two main aspects: the policing of expression and severe shaming of those who do not comply. Not only does it inhibit free speech, but it also ends up dictating what one wears or likes to do. A good example would be the far left's outrage over Halloween costumes because some are seemingly 'racist' and promote 'cultural appropriation'. Lecturer Erika and Dr. Nicholas Christakis spoke out against Yale University's excessively strict guidelines on what costumes are acceptable to wear. Their expression against self-censuring sparked outrage from the student body and irrational demands for them to resign. Erika Christakis eventually stepped down from her teaching position.

President-elect Donald Trump has openly spoken out against political correctness and one can obviously see his dislike of it from his brash speeches. As stated before, he criticized President Barack Obama for not acknowledging Omar Mateen's homophobic massacre as a radical Islamic attack. Obama defended his lack of acknowledgement by arguing that he did not want to generalize all Muslims as terrorists despite the fact that 'radical Islam' is a rather specific term. The mainstream media and the left berated Trump for being racist and Islamophobic.

Trump also received a lot of flak for speaking out against Black Lives Matter. He has criticized the movement for instigating attacks on police and expressing desire to murder cops during public protests. Of course, that did not sit well with BLM and the group labeled Trump as a racist white supremacist as a way to make him worse than he actually is. The shaming tactics ultimately did not work as not only did Trump win the general election, but he also received more black votes than Mitt Romney both in raw numbers and percentage.

The two-pronged attack of PC culture is evidentially dangerous as it restrains one's expression. It can also lead to unemployment, belligerent harassment or hindrance of needed social progress just because of mere disagreement. While Trump expressed opposition against political correctness, the left decided to double down on it. This made the Democratic Party rather unpalatable to numerous voters and the consequences were clear during the general election.

How the Left lost the 2016 Presidential Election (Part I): The Unholy Alliance between Islam and the Regressives

Over the past few years, Islam has risen to the top of the list of concerns thanks to the Syrian refugee crisis and the numerous terrorist attacks committed by radical Muslims in the west. Islamist terrorism particularly became a hot topic after the Orlando shooting, where Omar Mateen murdered 49 people at a gay nightclub after he pledged allegiance to ISIS.

Then-presidential candidate Donald Trump was right to condemn Omar Mateen's actions and correctly determined radical Islam to be the motivation behind his homophobic massacre. President Barack Obama, however, refused to acknowledge the shooting as Islamic terrorism, prompting Trump to criticize Obama for not calling the attack for what it was.

In defense of his lack of acknowledgement, Obama explained that he does not want to "lump [Islamic terrorists] into the billion Muslims that exist around the world, including in this country, who are peaceful, who are responsible, who, in this country, are fellow troops and police officers and fire fighters and teachers and neighbors and friends" at the CNN Presidential Town Hall.

Obama's defense is nothing short of hyperbole. Trump did not conflate all Muslims as terrorists. He said that the source of Omar Mateen's extremism was radical Islam. This turned out to be true as the mosque Omar used to attend invited a cleric Farrokh Sekaleshfar in April, who said that slaughtering is a "compassionate" act.

One of the most important things in solving a problem is to identify the source. Trump did just that while Obama and other people of the left refused to do so. Instead, many leftists condemned Trump for being Islamophobic (even though it is not irrational to fear Islam) and racist (even though Islam is not a race). Even worse, these leftists would also condemn other critics of Islam for the same things regardless of whether the criticism was warranted or if the critics were of the left or right.

The constant labeling of critics of Islam as Islamophobes and racists was one of the reasons why Hillary Clinton lost the election. The left has refused to engage in a deep discussion on the violent ideology of Islam and how destructive it can be. Instead, many leftists resort to labels to shut down whatever constructive communication that could have existed. Hillary Clinton was no exception to this and that turned many voters away from her.