First of all, I apologize for my somewhat extreme remarks in my last post, but what happened recently is really hard to calm down. Many Chinese players have devoted hundreds of hours to this game. Stardew Valley is more than just a game for us, it is a warm little home we have built in the virtual world. And when you open the door and return to this warm world, wanting to get comfort, you find that everything is so strange and weird, and everyone is saying weird things.
Stardew Valley is originally a magical world, and many players have formed original reading habits. It is good to be able to correct some old translation errors in the new version. Thank you for your efforts. However, the addition of overly academic words and Chinese Internet buzzwords is unacceptable and violates the principle of “faithfulness 、expressiveness and elegance ” in translation. It feels like the God of the real world has suddenly turned into the God of Shakespeare and the Internet, and everyone either speaks like Shakespeare or can only communicate in Internet slang.
As for the feedback from players, I don’t know if the Chinese team has taken it seriously and listened to their suggestions. Just like what someone mentioned before: "dachang (Internet giant company)" and "neijuan (meaningless individual competition)". A staff member replied that the word "neijuan" appeared in 2018, so it is reasonable for Sebastian to say this word. Which is funny, because Stardew Valley doesn't reflect a lot of its era. It is obviously unreasonable to use this reason to support the translation of these two words, because I can also say that Sebastian is still using such a large desktop computer, how can you determine whether the time in the game is later than 2018? And I also saw in the player responses later that some players from other places where Chinese is spoken, they do not clearly understand Internet buzzwords that only exist in mainland China, such as "dachang (Internet giant company)". Therefore, as someone mentioned before, if players want to propose modifications, they must give them rigorously and conscientiously without making any mistakes or omissions. Sometimes the staff can refute it by just giving a subjective or even sophistical reply. This is arrogant and defeats the purpose of communication because we inevitably end up in a verbal spat.