Was the workflow MT -> human translation?
If so thats honestly such a lazy followthru given the technical hurdles overcome wrt the font tech
> What I call the “playtesting translation” — a base translation that allowed the artists and playtesters to get started early and understand what they were working on — was developed using a combination of DeepL and ChatGPT 4o/4.5. That translation then went through a substantial, months-long human translator review. I don't think that the end product feels “machine-translated,” but that’s ultimately for you, the player, to judge.
And the consensus among professional translators is that MTPE only saves time if you're willing to accept a half-assed result. For them to edit MT up to the standard of manual translation takes just as much expertise and effort as translating it manually in the first place.
I have no particular interest in translation, but clearly when the person saying X is bad depends financially on you not buying X, you must take their word with a grain of salt.
[citation needed]
> 12.08% [of translators] say MTPE produces high-quality output.
> A significant portion (around 50%) of respondents do not offer discounts for MTPE work, arguing that post-editing can take as much time as traditional translation.
> Among those who do offer discounts, the most common range is between 10-30%.
Just boooooo.
Disappointed. Gif
As a side bar, I found it funny how in a Stanford lecture teaching various routes to training llms on the Machine Translation benchmark, the sample used was a French to English translation of 'the teddy bear is blue' or something similar.
After the lecture I reviewed the current production grade google translate...it butchered the translation
I wouldnt trust machine translation.