I reserve the right to call a hack a hack.

One thing that's been disconcerting me about the recent bug-addled, typo-riddled release of AT2 is the number of people in the "non-core" fandom-- i.e. those who frequent the GameFAQs and other such forums, but don't actually participate in AT-only fan spaces-- who've been calling out the core fans for complaining about the errors, accusing them of acting "too entitled" and "looking a gift horse in the mouth".

This winds me up for a couple of reasons. Firstly, AT2 was not a "gift horse". It was a $40 game. Gamers are no different from other consumers in that they have a right to protest a product they've paid for if they don't find it to be satisfactory. Complaining at the creators of a fan translation, who've done the job solely out of the goodness of their own hearts and on their own time, is more of a quandary; you're perfectly within your right to state your dislike, though it's also hard to argue that a fan owes any more of their time to a project than they're willing to put in.

That said, one expects that if someone's going to put in the effort to see a translation project through to completion, fan or no, it's respectful of the game-- and sensible, with regards to how much more effort it takes proportionally to output a polished translation versus an unpolished one-- to release something at least half-decent. And even if it's not exactly fair to demand that a fan should have spent more time on the game, I feel one is within their right to boycott the translation, to suggest other people boycott the translation, and to generally express disapproval of it if you find it not to do justice to the game.

Which brings me to my second point: I not only don't accept this level of localisation quality from a company whose job it is to do this-- I wouldn't accept it from a fanwork. I would have reservations about recommending a fanfic that demonstrates this level of proofreading and grammatical competence. I don't think that means I hold fanfics to unreasonable standards. I don't think that makes me arrogant. I think that means I feel that whether sentence construction has had care and attention paid to it or whether it's spilt out onto the page like a drunken IM conversation makes a difference to the experience of a story.

Stories are better when they're well-written. I want to read, and recommend, well-written amateur fiction. I expect to read well-written professional fiction. I shouldn't be expected, when I come across a badly-told story, to say "well, at least we got the story" and leave it at that. I am grateful we got the story; stories, no matter how awkwardly told, are things worth having in this world. I think it's a positive that Ar Tonelico 2 exists as it does. I just think it could have been cared for more by those who brought it over, and I don't think I'm remiss in pointing out that it's not as good as it could have been, by a long shot.

And for those who'd protest the typo-filled translation of a book but think we're getting too worked up about something that's "just a videogame": in Shakespeare's time, plays were considered popular entertainment for the masses. When the modern novel was first invented it was seen as a cheap form of entertainment not befitting the upper class. Art forms are generally only respected in retrospect. That doesn't mean you can't use your brain, examine history, and get a head start.