A fascinating idea, live interpretation in diplomatic situations is definitely one of those high stress situation where you really have to to be mentally switched on and considering all the implications of your words. It’s definitely a bit of mental whiplash at times switching back and forth from vastly different modes of thinking from Lojit and vice versa for example. Very interested in seeing where this project goes.
I was surprised at first that a language based game wouldn’t show any representation of what the languages actually looked like until I realised it was about interpretation and English would be a better medium to showcase the inherent structural and cultural tone differences baked into the languages. I was wondering if that was something you took into account: accounting for the more poetic baseline when translating to Fleschette by softening your words from Lojit, because blunt directness in addressing a topic which may be normal in Lojit might be already ruder by default in Fleschette even given added poetry. From the direct nature of Lojit I would definitely assume Lojit speakers would meet a cultural clash with indirect, high-context cultures that rely more on reading between the lines.
Will you be adding anything about what guidelines and norms interpreters tend to follow? I know you did add a line about how interpreters are meant to be neutral. I’m not at all involved in that field but from what little I do know I’m under the impression in modern day interpretation you are meant to translate the intended message faithfully and not embellish/understate things for diplomatic reasons. I’d assume there are galactic standards the player would know and be aware of so that they could purposefully break those standards with full knowledge of the consequences if that’s how they wanted to play it.
Question feedback:
Typo?:
With soaring hearts we’re meant to fly [n] With whispered words, with whispered words
Against the darkness we defy
What’s [n] supposed to be doing here? I’m not aware of any text tags that start with [n] in choicescript, is this supposed to represent something language related like stand for native language?
Which character did you like the most, and why?
Don’t think I had enough time to really get a look into each individuals character. The ones that stood out most were just ones speaking up on the case antagonising each other: the Crescent woman and the AFTA representative. The others seemed nice enough but none really stand out given they were all introduced at mostly the same block of time.
Where do you see this story going from here?
I’m thinking it’ll probably drop into a little downtime to let us know the various characters and what the more mundane side of an interpreter’s life must be like to set the scene and give context to everything. Show off the cultures in everyday life when things aren’t so high stake.
Overall story-wise it seems like it’ll slowly build up around diplomatic events and the workings around behind the scene that must occur in diplomacy that people don’t tend to see, and how the player can pull strings and gain influence by networking perhaps. Becoming more informed for a more knowledge-based playstyle.
And…then a war from the sounds of it where they’ll need to put all their efforts up to then into play perhaps?
What do you think the strengths of this story are, so far?
The way the worldbuilding is conveyed. I’ve always felt that you can’t really separate culture and language entirely since a language will reflect the needs of a culture and demonstrate what they prioritise being able to convey. It’s definitely a good way of implementing ‘show, don’t tell’ with the ways you’ve conveyed the differences in how languages work and the problems that can arrive in translation so that even a layperson with no linguistic knowledge can understand.
Which faction has the moral high ground?
Depends on what you would consider just and moral, I hardly think I can judge an entire faction based on a single case with no other information.
It seems clear to me that there’s a definite value clash with the AFTA believing it has fairly compensated the death in accordance to its guidelines and the Crescents valuing life much more highly and believing material goods are not equal or adequate compensation. Don’t have enough evidence to say one way or another the reasons behind the decision-making so I only have conjecture.
Perhaps life and poverty is plentiful in AFTA areas and worker lives are simply monetary collateral loss under a capitalistic system. Perhaps AFTA values follow more strictly to the rules of law; that justice, a structured society and rules are highly correlated and that there cannot be special exceptions for emotional damages if all are equal and subject to the same rules that happen to equate human life to any other material loss. Or perhaps AFTA actually does care about the human cost but openly addressing about emotional sides to subjects is taboo in their culture and appeals to emotion considered to delegitimise a speaker, and they would rather take action to address this problem in other ways.
That said? With what information is given I’d probably side with the Crescents on this particular case.
EDIT: Looks like you had an additional question not on the list in the demo.
How would you describe Ansible Station 24 if you were to recommend it to others?
How to convey diplomatic messages in space (without accidentally making everyone shoot the messenger/intergalactic war)
and like. WHY. Their tone is clipped, we don’t get to even talk too much, but it’s just… hh.