Macready Posted February 21, 2006 Posted February 21, 2006 Hello - When you developed the game text update portion of the fixpack, did you use the changes from the Baldurdash GTU as a starting point? Or did you essentially just start from scratch? I ask because I'll be starting a test run with Alpha 7 soon, and I am curious as to what state of editorial review the game text is in (i.e., is it based on Baldurdash GTU and therefore has already been intensely scrutinized for years, or are these new edits that will require very close reading of all text).
devSin Posted February 21, 2006 Posted February 21, 2006 is it based on Baldurdash GTUThis is true.intensely scrutinized for yearsThis is false. The Baldurdash GTU is a complete joke. I would support removing it entirely, but there's nothing to really replace it with.
icelus Posted February 21, 2006 Posted February 21, 2006 I think any grammar/spelling/etc. errors found should be immediately reported. The Fixpack will probably be updated much more frequently than Baldurdash ever was.
CamDawg Posted February 21, 2006 Posted February 21, 2006 Hello - When you developed the game text update portion of the fixpack, did you use the changes from the Baldurdash GTU as a starting point? Or did you essentially just start from scratch? I ask because I'll be starting a test run with Alpha 7 soon, and I am curious as to what state of editorial review the game text is in (i.e., is it based on Baldurdash GTU and therefore has already been intensely scrutinized for years, or are these new edits that will require very close reading of all text). It's basically based off a diff between the Baldurdash GTU and the default strings. That being said, please read it closely--we've already found a number of strings that are questionable, at best.. I would like to sucker recruit someone to actually do a line-by-line review of it but I haven't found anyone masochistic enough yet.
icelus Posted February 21, 2006 Posted February 21, 2006 Stop looking at me. I'm sure there are lots of masochists around. I will volunteer to do a chunk, however. Maybe chunk it up and sadistically assign them.
CamDawg Posted February 21, 2006 Posted February 21, 2006 Good idea. Chunk one covers: strref #1 - strref #75000. Any takers? In all seriousness, if folks want to take a chunk of say, 1000 lines, post which millenium you're taking in theis thread. Let's also try to consolidate conventions--particularly re: spell and item descriptions--in this thread.
Macready Posted February 21, 2006 Author Posted February 21, 2006 Hello - Some of the game text updates represent a definite step backward in the area of grammar. I apologize to anyone involved in the rewriting for expressing that sentiment so bluntly, but I was annoyed before I even got past the first golem room in Irenicus's dungeon. If I feel that way, I'm sure others will as well. If I wanted to make some small changes to what is in the gtu.tra file, how would I go about it? Should I post before and after strings here, and let you decide what to include? Should I just start editing the alpha7 gtu.tra and then submit an updated one when I am sick of working on it? I'd really like to spruce up some of what is in there.
CamDawg Posted February 21, 2006 Posted February 21, 2006 I don't think anyone is editing the current tra file (and I don't have any local changes), so go for changing the tra file if you want. If ice or someone else wants to help, we may need to set up more wiki pages for it. One thing to keep in mind: if there's a string change that's really a bug fix (as opposed to spelling/grammar) we'd prefer to move it into the core fixes so the non-English folks can get it, too.
Macready Posted February 21, 2006 Author Posted February 21, 2006 Hello - I don't think anyone is editing the current tra file (and I don't have any local changes), so go for changing the tra file if you want. If ice or someone else wants to help, we may need to set up more wiki pages for it. One thing to keep in mind: if there's a string change that's really a bug fix (as opposed to spelling/grammar) we'd prefer to move it into the core fixes so the non-English folks can get it, too. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> OK, thanks. It's English-specific issues that I have in mind, but I will say something if I stumble across an actual glitch.
igi Posted February 21, 2006 Posted February 21, 2006 It would probably be best to set up a wiki page for this - if some kind soul organise sit properly I'd do a chunk or two. We should really agree on consistency guidelines before we make any edits though.
CamDawg Posted February 21, 2006 Posted February 21, 2006 Heh, the one time we tried to agree on a standard for item names (Lilarcor v Lilarcor +3) we ended in one of our trademark free-for-alls. With the exception of spell/item names and descriptions, what standards do we really need for day-to-day strings? The other question would be whether it's better to start from scratch or from a GTU'd .tlk file and roll back changes if needed. I'd suggest the latter.
Macready Posted February 21, 2006 Author Posted February 21, 2006 Hello - Heh, the one time we tried to agree on a standard for item names (Lilarcor v Lilarcor +3) we ended in one of our trademark free-for-alls. With the exception of spell/item names and descriptions, what standards do we really need for day-to-day strings? The other question would be whether it's better to start from scratch or from a GTU'd .tlk file and roll back changes if needed. I'd suggest the latter. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm a couple hours into editing already -- should I stop?
devSin Posted February 21, 2006 Posted February 21, 2006 Why don't you post some of what you've done already? I'd rather we get things like consistency and formatting and other miscellany out of the way before you spend too much time on it (imagine if we say, "No, do it like this, please," after you've already proofed the entire thing!).
Macready Posted February 21, 2006 Author Posted February 21, 2006 Hello - Why don't you post some of what you've done already? I'd rather we get things like consistency and formatting and other miscellany out of the way before you spend too much time on it (imagine if we say, "No, do it like this, please," after you've already proofed the entire thing!). <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, I am essentially starting from the top of the TRA and working down, but I am finding that there is a certain method to doing it effectively. For example, I noticed some inconsistencies in what came after the "Proficiency Type:" string on items (e.g., "Staff" in some places, "Quarterstaff" in another, and so forth). So I did a search on "Proficiency Type:", looked at every single one, and made them consistent. Also, every time I get to a certain type of weapon for the first time (e.g., long bow), I proofread the description text very closely, touch it up, and then apply the same changes everywhere else the same text is used. As for the dialog, I am just reading it and touching it up, being careful not to change anything which is a voiced line (having a non-empty [] after the string means it is voiced, right?). Since the starting point was a Baldurdash GTU'ed DIALOG.TLK, and it looks as though you've made edits since, I thought we were at the point of just fixing grammar, style and consistency. Documenting changes would definitely be tedious since I am making tons of small ones (e.g., making sure there are two spaces between the end of one sentence and the start of another). But if there is more content work to be done yet, I definitely agree that "final proofreading" of the sort I am doing is premature and ultimately a wasted effort.
devSin Posted February 21, 2006 Posted February 21, 2006 OK. It's up to Cam, but I can't see that any reasonable changes to the Baldurdash GTU can be a bad thing. I guess as long as you standardized on Quarterstaff, continue as needed.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.