We value the authenticity of our localization works as much as their quality and accuracy. Game localization is seldom a one-person (or one-team) process, and it requires the undivided care and attention of several parties, such as translators, reviewers, and localization quality assurers (LQA). In this equation, the relationship between localization and LQA teams is the most significant, as it tends to get stressful and repetitive from time to time.
The feedback (sometimes, the lack of feedback) from LQA teams may leave translators in a gray area where they would feel misunderstood, vain, and sometimes confused. Translators might have to explain and defend themselves, or their work, in situations that might have potentially been avoided. There might even be cases where they come to find out that their translations were altered without prior notice or consultation. Ultimately, these conflicts would result in unfavorable, inconsistent, and “sick” (on the downside) works of localization. After years of struggling, I finally realized there is a simple, but highly effective cure for this ailing state. Keep it in mind, however, this is a medication that should be taken by both sides. Here is the “Triapharmakos” (The Three-Part Remedy) I would like to recommend to both translation and LQA teams:
1. Communication
The following represent dialogues between a LQA team and a PM.
LQA: “The translations are not that good, there are several errors.”
PM: “Could you please point out these errors so that we can fix them?”
LQA: “There are several errors…”
LQA: “This is a mistranslation.”
PM: “We wanted to approach this string by using a more local idiom due to character restrictions.”
LQA: “Mistranslation.”
Not only this approach fails to help anyone that takes part in the localization process, it also might cause the client PM that observes the process to have the impression that “the translation was so bad, it isn't even worth talking about.” What comes after would be irritated, discouraged translators, an unhappy client, and in the worst case, an atmosphere of dispute between the two teams. In order to prevent this issue, LQA teams should care to provide elaborate reports, highlighting parts where they find errors. On the other hand, it would be a good practice for translators to add comments to the lines that would potentially raise questions (i.e. unorthodox translations that strays from the source text, but still relevant and understandable within the game’s context). While these efforts may look troublesome and time consuming at a first glance, they will surely help localization and LQA teams to see eye to eye and in the long run, the time that both parties spend on arguing will be significantly reduced and they’ll have time to pay attention to more important aspects of the localization process. Such as…
2. Collaboration
The main objective of both translation and LQA teams must be to attain a work of localization that will earn the hearts of players. However, this aspiration should not devolve into a competition where both teams are trying to undo each other’s work. The LQA team should avoid criticizing for the sake of criticism and feel comfortable with concluding an assessment report by a simple “Kudos!” Not all criticism falls into this category, of course. The translators should be open to accepting their mistakes, and when a better version of their localization is offered, they should perceive this as an opportunity to gain experience as a linguist. Two heads (or teams, in this case) are better than one.
3. Empathy
Empathy, the third part of the remedy, could be considered a supplement, rather than an active ingredient, as it goes hand in hand with our first two methods, communication and collaboration. While practicing these approaches, one should always keep in mind that the parties we interact with are people. People make mistakes, which is the reason review and LQA teams exist in the first place. In some cases, the feedback that translators receive could be the mistake. Regardless of the position held in this professional relationship, one should always keep in mind that missing and/or misleading feedback (from both parties), and the lack of context in translation comments would be prone to raise questions and qualms about the work in question. This is even more important in times when one side fails to show empathy. The person in question could be having a difficult day, and it is our professional responsibility to communicate our intentions in a courteous manner and maintain a healthy conversation. We are a team, after all… not rivals.
To summarize, adopting healthy communication, well-intended collaboration and empathy is our best shot at keeping our localization workflow as productive as possible. While this may not solve all the problems we would face in our projects, the idea of considering the other team a colleague, instead of competition, will make a significant difference. Our mutual goal is to provide the best localization and ultimately, keep our clients satisfied. Being aware of this fact will create a healthy workspace where people can thrive both emotionally and professionally.
