The current patch might be hardly perfect, but Banzai has already proven he doesn't have what it takes to fix its issues.
His lack of technical knowledge means he relies completely on the work of others to fix what the Thracia patch has of worst - its presentation.
Why are the things he's discussing not issues with the patch? He's mentioned other things he's doing, although I grant I haven't seen any of that other work so I can't comment on it.
You have, for example, intimated at "official romanizations exist so we should use those." That's an actual argument. If that is your position, stand behind it openly.
His shortcomings as far as textual interpretation goes and lack of sufficient familiarity with the canon make him unfit to properly locate and fix the script's flaws (I don't even have to bring the "doesn't know Japanese" card here, it's redundant).
And related to the interpretation issue, he seems unable to understand the idea that a name based on a mythological character doesn't need to be a carbon copy of it. He's more than willing - adamant, even - to change stuff that's already canonically romanized ingame. Even if we leave the Crusaders' names and whatnot FE4 had already set aside (and we shouldn't), he thinks, say, Ethlin should be named Ethlinn because huh, Thracia's opening is wrong because Tearring Saga's opening features a Dark Load. (?!?!)
Some of those questions are entirely legitimate, and your responses indicate more of a desire to bag on him than help him do work he's offered to do. You may think it's a fruitless endeavor in his hands or you may not like him as a person or something (I don't know either of you, as far as I know), but I don't think you're being helpful there and I don't think you're being helpful here.
I'm also not seeing the problem with asking people to clarify obscure bits of Jugdral Saga trivia that may come up here and there in conversations that the original patches (may have) screwed up. The timelines for these games are confusing enough to begin with. I see what he's doing as trying to make sure he's correct. You seem to see it as a complete inability to ever do anything right. It just seems to be assuming the worst from what he's trying to do. And I get the point of his TRS example, however nitpicky, which I guess is supposed to be "just because it's in the game in English doesn't mean it's right, because the original creators could have made a translation mistake themselves." That doesn't mean he's right
, but you don't seem to be trying very hard to demonstrate that he's wrong.
I mean, I get the sense he's trying awfully hard for somebody who's supposed to be incapable. If that is, as you've suggested, wasted effort, I have to wonder why anybody is so invested in it at the moment.
I seriously question the sanity (not to say something else) of any hacker who decides to waste their time and effort applying Banzai's changes to the current patch.
That seems rather extreme to me. Questioning his correctness is one thing, but calling his efforts a "waste" when there are some things you don't agree with seems a little much, don't you think? I mean I clearly would assume you
aren't going to do the hacking as you don't agree with it, so it won't be any skin off your nose if somebody else does.
Wrong. You do need to have a grasp of Japanese in order to understand how loan words are created. It's not always a simple intuitive phonetic translation like most people are led to believe. Furthermore a lot of possible anglicized readings will have the same kana, so you can't even confidently say that something is clearly meant to be another thing.
You know why posts like that are allowed? Because it is not destructive criticism to suggest "let's not change what ain't broke." Why do you feel so justified to criticize us otherwise? Why is that allowed?
Are proper nouns really loanwords now? There's a bit of a difference between a language adapting a word (with some grammatical or structural alterations) and representing another language's words as that language's words in your language's script. You're right that it might
be wrong due to the ambiguity of the kana and the inability to access the intentions of the creators of the games (at least as far as I know), but I'm honestly not seeing any point in people playing the ambiguity card as though it stops the argument being made. It's a fan translation. It's almost always ambiguous. You can't even trust official romanizations in some
cases. But from what I can tell, Banzai has attempted to show awareness of situations where kana do not match up and figure out a solution to that.
He could be wrong, so I don't disagree that you ought to be able to criticize his conclusions on that matter, but I get the sense there's either some serious argument from inertia going on somewhere or personal issues people are having that transcend him merely making disagreeable decisions. It just comes across as a spat that's about something more than what he's actually doing. I don't pretend to know, as I'm not personally familiar with anybody, but it strikes me as kind of weird.
At any rate: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is only a valid counterargument when the original argument doesn't outright claim it is broke. Which isn't to say it is
broke, but that seems to be what Banzai is arguing here, and he's offered justifications for what he thinks is broken and why he'd fix. "It's broke" -> "Nuh-uh, so don't fix it" is not a very well-developed argument.
"It's broke" -> "It isn't broke, because x is an official romanization and we know we can trust it because of a, because your reading of y as b is not generally how that kana works and not how it's worked in other translations, and because z appears in FE4 in its current form and for consistency's sake should be maintained instead of being changed to c, therefore there is no reason to fix x y and z" is a well-developed and probably convincing one. It's also an argument I'm waiting for somebody to actually make, because I can't really make it myself, and I'd like to consider both arguments in detail (even though my opinion means exactly nothing, I'm still interested in the process).