Revisiting Established Spell Names

PostPosted: Fri May 03 2019 11:38am
by legalize freedom
This is a proposal we debated probably 10 years ago, but I believe it deserves to be re-considered.

There are two glaring spell names remaining from the original English release of SF3 that are departures from the rest of the series, that is the English localizations of SITD, SF1, SFCD and SF2.

Spark vs Bolt

Soul Steal vs Desoul

These are contradictions I hear about a lot and witness virtually every SF veteran calling them by their established series names. If memory serves, the primary reason we didn't change them back then was that STHA also used the newer version. There are several reasons why I don't believe this should be enough to sway the decision:

-SF3 didn't follow the convention set forth by SF1, SFCD, SF2; STHA didn't follow convention set forth by SITD
-There are other "mistakes" between SF3 and STHA such as Healing Drop vs Potion, Potion vs Elixir, Small Mithril vs Mithril Ore and Large Mithril vs Mithril Ingot
-SF3 should adhere more to SF1 and SF2 than STHA (which is certainly debatable)
-One day we may be able to correct all the issues with STHA too (fingers crossed)


Looking to the real differences between the spells in the different games brings me to a secondary reason why these weren't changed before. The Tornado spell (presumably a decendant of the Blast spell) had a unique animation that was ceratainly described by Tornado, so that one wasn't changing.

Bolt/Spark
These are the same from game to game and are better described by Bolt. I see no reason this shouldn't be changed to Bolt. The one letter shorter will help with some item descriptions that have had to be oddly shortened by a character or two.

Desoul/Soul Steal
In the older games, Desoul was simply a chance to insta-kill. If it failed (which it did quite often), it did nothing, so it wasn't as useful as it could have been. In SF3, Soul Steal does damage if it doesn't insta-kill. While this is a change, I would consider it a tweaking of an unpopular spell as opposed to a reason to change the name. Another point I've heard is that it doesn't steal health which is implied by the name. The flip side is the damage done could be considered stealing from them, just not leaching/recovering for the castor.


Thoughts?

Re: Revisiting Established Spell Names

PostPosted: Fri May 03 2019 12:01pm
by sulfuroxp
Use the original names (Spark, Soul Steal, Hellblast, Antidote, Return, ...)

Re: Revisiting Established Spell Names

PostPosted: Fri May 03 2019 1:55pm
by DiegoMM
Bolt and Desoul for me.

Re: Revisiting Established Spell Names

PostPosted: Fri May 03 2019 4:11pm
by RedArcher
DiegoMM wrote:Bolt and Desoul for me.


Same for me. Never ever got it why some spells were renamed in SF III.

Re: Revisiting Established Spell Names

PostPosted: Tue May 07 2019 8:23am
by Chinagonuk
For me, my decision would depend on whether or not the Japanese SF3 had revised spell names from the Japanese SF1/SF2.

If this was the case, then the developers must have made a conscious decision to change the spell names. If not, then it’s just another mistake by the awful localisation team.

Re: Revisiting Established Spell Names

PostPosted: Tue May 07 2019 12:13pm
by legalize freedom
Chinagonuk wrote:For me, my decision would depend on whether or not the Japanese SF3 had revised spell names from the Japanese SF1/SF2.

If this was the case, then the developers must have made a conscious decision to change the spell names. If not, then it’s just another mistake by the awful localisation team.


That doesn't matter so much to me. I mean if it could have been a conscious decision or an awful mistake... that kind of tells me something. It could have been a conscious decision that either didn't receive enough consideration or it was just a plain poor decision.

What I am most concerned with is getting the right decision into the translation patch.

Re: Revisiting Established Spell Names

PostPosted: Tue May 07 2019 5:10pm
by Rune
Doesn't the animation for soul steal look absolutely nothing like the old desoul animation? Sure the stha soul steal certainly matches the old desoul, but I don't think the SF3 soul steal does. I assume people think soul steal should replenish life only for the reason that it did so in SOTN.

I do prefer bolt to spark.


There is the simple question of what group of fans you want to prioritize with making, or not making, these changes.

Sure, matching older games is great and all, but clearly some choices were made in the old games just to save a few characters. That seems like a really lame tradition to uphold.

Re: Revisiting Established Spell Names

PostPosted: Tue May 07 2019 6:15pm
by legalize freedom
Rune wrote:Doesn't the animation for soul steal look absolutely nothing like the old desoul animation? Sure the stha soul steal certainly matches the old desoul, but I don't think the SF3 soul steal does. I assume people think soul steal should replenish life only for the reason that it did so in SOTN.

I do prefer bolt to spark.


There is the simple question of what group of fans you want to prioritize with making, or not making, these changes.

Sure, matching older games is great and all, but clearly some choices were made in the old games just to save a few characters. That seems like a really lame tradition to uphold.


The animations of either Soul Steal or Desoul qualify for either name, so I don't think there is a concern there. But you may be on to something with Soul Steal being added because of the ability to have a longer name. I hadn't considered that. It may or may not be true, but good point.

Re: Revisiting Established Spell Names

PostPosted: Tue May 07 2019 8:09pm
by Swalchy
I prefer the STHA/SF3 localisation of the name-spells over the earlier games.

Granted quite a lot of weapon and item icons were transferred from STHA to SF3 with different names, however that's likely due to the fact that the support for the Sega Saturn was at its endgame when SF3 was being developed (never mind released), so it likely saved them quite a bit of time having to create new weapon and item icons.

Though I do agree that Bolt is better than Spark - not quite sure that I think of "sparks" when it comes to having something blasted by lightening...

Re: Revisiting Established Spell Names

PostPosted: Wed May 08 2019 4:05pm
by knight0fdragon
Nothing stops us from having multiple builds exist... maybe if some developer got off his lazy ass, he could finally whip up the new program that he keeps lying to everybody about, making this process easier.

Re: Revisiting Established Spell Names

PostPosted: Wed May 08 2019 9:10pm
by Rune
Wait... there's an option that makes everyone happy. I don't like this idea.

Re: Revisiting Established Spell Names

PostPosted: Fri May 10 2019 2:25pm
by DomingoRules!
I feel like it's important for spell names to stay the same as they've always been, and not even for the sake of the fans, but for the sake of the world in which they exist. If they're the same spells being cast, then the names tied to them would also be the same. I oftentimes feel that spell names are incorporated into a spell's incantation, and/or interwoven into the spell's very essence. Attributes that wouldn't change from region to region, otherwise the spell itself would also change. To me, it's not about appeasing the fans. It's about maintaining consistency within the world one has created.

The only exception is if, in a video game, text limitations were an issue from achieving the proper name in an older title, and then later ones were updated. However, unless I'm overlooking something, that excuse only really applies to Soul Steal and Antidote. If we're going off Shining in the Darkness as the standard, I believe the longest spell name in that was Egress, landing us at a 6-letter character limit. That would justify the shortening of some spells, such as Soul Steal to Desoul, and Antidote to Detox, but wouldn't justify changes made to spells such as Egress becoming Return (both the same number of letters), and Bolt becoming Spark (Spark being less than the aforementioned limit).

All that being said, the only spell I can think of that I would be on board to changing from its Genesis roots would be Desoul, because it does act differently. As said earlier in this thread, Soul Steal inflicts damage regardless of whether or not the target is instantly slain. That would suggest that Soul Steal and Desoul are, in fact, different spells within the Camelot franchise's world, with Soul Steal likely being derived from the basic principles of Desoul to be more efficient.

Re: Revisiting Established Spell Names

PostPosted: Fri May 10 2019 4:10pm
by knight0fdragon
The issue could also lie in how the game was translated. Perhaps Sega/Camelot now has better translators and UX designers than it did during the 16 bit generation. "Egress" is not a term many are familiar with, so from a UX standpoint, it may be offputting to new players. Same with Desoul and Detox. Bolt may have been swapped out to avoid confusion with cross bow bolts. One could argue that the new spell names is in correlation with the times being 1000s of years after the events of SF2.

Re: Revisiting Established Spell Names

PostPosted: Fri May 10 2019 7:41pm
by Rune
DomingoRules! wrote:I feel like it's important for spell names to stay the same as they've always been, and not even for the sake of the fans, but for the sake of the world in which they exist. If they're the same spells being cast, then the names tied to them would also be the same. I oftentimes feel that spell names are incorporated into a spell's incantation, and/or interwoven into the spell's very essence. Attributes that wouldn't change from region to region, otherwise the spell itself would also change. To me, it's not about appeasing the fans. It's about maintaining consistency within the world one has created.


But how do you know they haven't changed slightly over the years and from continent to continent? How do you know some low level fire spell hasn't changed just a bit over a thousand years? In the shining universe, there's no mention of spells requiring an ancient and otherwise unused language, as some other games have done.

In fact, you do know there is some variance. Why do ninjas have slightly different magic from wizards? The spells are different in more than just name, but usually have the same animation.


And in terms of game lore... For most of the series, you are being read or told the tale of what happened. You are not there actually seeing how things were, you only have what someone else wrote down of what happened. Maybe some people wrote bolt, and some wrote spark.

Re: Revisiting Established Spell Names

PostPosted: Fri May 10 2019 8:25pm
by sulfuroxp
That's why you should use the original names, and not only for spell but Items, characters and locations too

Re: Revisiting Established Spell Names

PostPosted: Fri May 10 2019 8:34pm
by Rune
This was me misreading stuff.

Re: Revisiting Established Spell Names

PostPosted: Fri May 10 2019 11:43pm
by knight0fdragon
He means original to the game it is in, not original as in from the first time it was introduced in the series.

Re: Revisiting Established Spell Names

PostPosted: Sat May 11 2019 4:13am
by DomingoRules!
Rune wrote:But how do you know they haven't changed slightly over the years and from continent to continent? How do you know some low level fire spell hasn't changed just a bit over a thousand years? In the shining universe, there's no mention of spells requiring an ancient and otherwise unused language, as some other games have done.

I definitely considered that, but stuck to my guns for the sake of making the point without contradicting myself. I just wanted to get my thoughts on the matter on the table, in case anybody cared to have that much thought put into the decision. Especially since neither side of the argument really has any evidence to support itself over the other, so it would ultimately come down to us to decide how to interpret that kind of information.

Re: Revisiting Established Spell Names

PostPosted: Sat May 11 2019 12:48pm
by legalize freedom
What if I told you the original Sc2 and Sc3 matched the series convention (Bolt, Desoul)?

What if I told you the original Sc2 and Sc3 matched the official English release of Sc1 (Spark, Soul Steal)?

Would this make a difference in your opinion? Should it?

Re: Revisiting Established Spell Names

PostPosted: Sat May 11 2019 9:18pm
by DomingoRules!
legalize freedom wrote:What if I told you the original Sc2 and Sc3 matched the series convention (Bolt, Desoul)?

What if I told you the original Sc2 and Sc3 matched the official English release of Sc1 (Spark, Soul Steal)?

Would this make a difference in your opinion? Should it?

I feel like that would depend on how the series convention is reflected between the Japanese and English versions of the pre-Saturn games as well. For example, if the original Japanese versions of the Genesis titles matched the English conventions we know, then so too would it be best to try to maintain that trueness in the Saturn releases as well. However, if the spell names were changed for localizing the Genesis titles, then the spell names in the Japanese Saturn titles should have no bearing on what we make them to be.

In other words: Were, or were not, the Genesis translations faithful with their spells?

Re: Revisiting Established Spell Names

PostPosted: Thu Jun 13 2019 12:02pm
by legalize freedom
The poll is live!

Re: Revisiting Established Spell Names

PostPosted: Fri Jun 14 2019 3:37am
by alex_man
spark and soul steal :thumbsup:

Re: Revisiting Established Spell Names

PostPosted: Fri Jun 14 2019 5:48pm
by DomingoRules!
I'm torn between three things. Keeping the spells consistent with the other Shining Force games. Keeping the spells consistent with Holy Ark. Or mixing it up based on my previous proposal that Soul Steal and Desoul are in fact different spells, thus throwing my votes to Bolt and Soul Steal.

Re: Revisiting Established Spell Names

PostPosted: Fri Jun 14 2019 6:04pm
by legalize freedom
DomingoRules! wrote:I'm torn between three things. Keeping the spells consistent with the other Shining Force games. Keeping the spells consistent with Holy Ark. Or mixing it up based on my previous proposal that Soul Steal and Desoul are in fact different spells, thus throwing my votes to Bolt and Soul Steal.


We will make Holy Ark consistent with SF3 in the future so you can cross that dilemma off the list.

Re: Revisiting Established Spell Names

PostPosted: Fri Jun 14 2019 6:58pm
by RedArcher
As much as I like the fact that SFIII is trying to be close as possible to the japanese original names, I'm still leaning towards BOLT and DESOUL.

Re: Revisiting Established Spell Names

PostPosted: Fri Jun 14 2019 7:56pm
by RetroZanon
Spark and Soul Steal.

Re: Revisiting Established Spell Names

PostPosted: Fri Jun 14 2019 8:28pm
by Rune
legalize freedom wrote:
DomingoRules! wrote:I'm torn between three things. Keeping the spells consistent with the other Shining Force games. Keeping the spells consistent with Holy Ark. Or mixing it up based on my previous proposal that Soul Steal and Desoul are in fact different spells, thus throwing my votes to Bolt and Soul Steal.


We will make Holy Ark consistent with SF3 in the future so you can cross that dilemma off the list.


I don't agree with that reasoning.

Suppose you do a retranslation of STHA. I doubt it will have the same interest from the community as the SF3 translation. Unless you somehow up the framerate, why should I bother playing your version of STHA when I have a perfectly good one? I don't see why the possibility of a STHA translation project should have any bearing on this decision.

Re: Revisiting Established Spell Names

PostPosted: Sun Jun 16 2019 1:37pm
by legalize freedom
The review and "correction" of STHA should bear as much on this decision as your desire for the two games to match.

Re: Revisiting Established Spell Names

PostPosted: Sun Jun 16 2019 3:35pm
by knight0fdragon
Rune wrote:
legalize freedom wrote:
DomingoRules! wrote:I'm torn between three things. Keeping the spells consistent with the other Shining Force games. Keeping the spells consistent with Holy Ark. Or mixing it up based on my previous proposal that Soul Steal and Desoul are in fact different spells, thus throwing my votes to Bolt and Soul Steal.


We will make Holy Ark consistent with SF3 in the future so you can cross that dilemma off the list.


I don't agree with that reasoning.

Suppose you do a retranslation of STHA. I doubt it will have the same interest from the community as the SF3 translation. Unless you somehow up the framerate, why should I bother playing your version of STHA when I have a perfectly good one? I don't see why the possibility of a STHA translation project should have any bearing on this decision.



I dunno, I see many games out there that have retranslations of their US counterparts to fix the broken English in it. Will it be as big as SF3, definitely not, but some people may appreciate it. It is not like any of these games are cheap anymore and people are playing originals.

Re: Revisiting Established Spell Names

PostPosted: Sun Jun 16 2019 7:49pm
by DomingoRules!
Is there really enough inconsistency in Holy Ark against the SF3 translation that would warrant the effort?

Re: Revisiting Established Spell Names

PostPosted: Sun Jun 16 2019 8:15pm
by Rune
I remember being excited about the FF4 retranslation, but then I never played it. I remember being excited about the PS2 retranslation, but then I never played it.

If other people care for it, sure good for them and they can enjoy it. But myself, I care about the SF3 translation and don't care about the possibility of the STHA retranslation. Yes, people are entitled to want a reskinned STHA, but I'm entitled to not want it.

Re: Revisiting Established Spell Names

PostPosted: Sun Jun 16 2019 8:41pm
by legalize freedom
DomingoRules! wrote:Is there really enough inconsistency in Holy Ark against the SF3 translation that would warrant the effort?


The effort would amount to correcting the inconsistency and a grammar pass. I'm not suggesting a complete re-translation. Mainly just correct what isn't consistent.

Re: Revisiting Established Spell Names

PostPosted: Mon Jun 17 2019 2:28pm
by knight0fdragon
Rune wrote:I remember being excited about the FF4 retranslation, but then I never played it. I remember being excited about the PS2 retranslation, but then I never played it.

If other people care for it, sure good for them and they can enjoy it. But myself, I care about the SF3 translation and don't care about the possibility of the STHA retranslation. Yes, people are entitled to want a reskinned STHA, but I'm entitled to not want it.



Sure, you are entitled to not want it, but you are not entitled to stop others from creating it haha. You can mix and match all of the different versions of translations this team creates with the originals to form your own story haha.

Re: Revisiting Established Spell Names

PostPosted: Tue Jun 18 2019 12:57pm
by Swalchy
I do prefer Spark and Soul Steal, and would actually prefer the earlier Megadrive/Genesis/GG games to have them named that way as well.

Plus to be honest, if you're not happy with the spell names eventually chosen for the "official" translation, you can use the Translation programme yourself and put whatever spell names you want in your own version :)

Or, if LF would be up for it, producing two versions of the SF3 Patch, one with the "Newer" Sega Saturn spell names, and one with the "older" spell names.

Re: Revisiting Established Spell Names

PostPosted: Tue Jun 18 2019 6:10pm
by legalize freedom
I'm a bit shocked at the support for Spark. Leading up to this poll, the vast majority, like 9 out of 10 people I asked thought it was a no-brainer to use Bolt. That Spark just sounded weak and didn't describe a lightning bolt whatsoever. So much so I almost didn't bother putting up a poll for it...

Soul Steal and Desoul was right down the middle, so that is expected.

Re: Revisiting Established Spell Names

PostPosted: Tue Jun 18 2019 7:09pm
by knight0fdragon
legalize freedom wrote:I'm a bit shocked at the support for Spark. Leading up to this poll, the vast majority, like 9 out of 10 people I asked thought it was a no-brainer to use Bolt. That Spark just sounded weak and didn't describe a lightning bolt whatsoever. So much so I almost didn't bother putting up a poll for it...

Soul Steal and Desoul was right down the middle, so that is expected.




Huh? As of this post, Bolt is 6/15 and Spark is 9/15.

Desoul is 5/15 and Soul Steal is 10/15


Soul Steal is definitely no right down the middle lol.


I am curious on those 9 Sparks though, because the 6 Bolts have voiced their opinions, but the sparks are quiet.


Also, based on a forum search. I see quite a number of people constantly having to say Bolt/Spark when talking about the spell, so perhaps opinion should not decide this, but how it is communicated between the members naturally.

Re: Revisiting Established Spell Names

PostPosted: Tue Jun 18 2019 10:28pm
by DomingoRules!
Could also be some people who prefer to keep it the same, even if they prefer the other by name. Just so they don't have to get accustom to the spells in SF3 suddenly being called something different from what they've always been known as in that particular trilogy.

Re: Revisiting Established Spell Names

PostPosted: Sun Aug 25 2019 4:04pm
by nicbongo
thanks @legalize freedom for the redirection to this thread.

I've gone for the originals Bolt and Desoul.

Bolt = As it was the same as Shining Force 1 & 2. Sounds more aggressive than Spark. The OP gives other good arguments for it.

Desoul = As mentioned in the OP. The spell doesn't replenish caster's health, so soul steal seems innaccurate. Desoul refers still though to the attacking of another's soul, which I think explains the damage the target takes if not fully successful. It also gives a sense that there is still a cost for the target to fend off the Desoul attack. Does the dark/light resistance mechanic in the game mediate how much damage would be received by a failed Desoul? It would be cool if those with better resistances receive lesser damage and vice versa etc?

Cheers,

Re: Revisiting Established Spell Names

PostPosted: Sun Aug 25 2019 10:44pm
by Lord Kane
Yes, the dark resistance is taken into account!

Re: Revisiting Established Spell Names

PostPosted: Thu Sep 26 2019 11:44am
by legalize freedom
These polls are almost over!

Only two weeks remaining to vote if you haven't already.

Thank you!

Re: Revisiting Established Spell Names

PostPosted: Thu Sep 26 2019 4:53pm
by DomingoRules!
Soul Steal seems pretty guaranteed at this point, but the race for lightning supremacy is still anybody's game (assuming more votes actually happen).

Re: Revisiting Established Spell Names

PostPosted: Fri Sep 27 2019 8:11am
by RetroZanon
I feel I should leave at least some opinion so it's not just "voted for the sakes of voting" kind of thing.

Considering the limitations SF1 and 2 had in terms of naming skills and classes, I think we need to take that into consideration.

Spark vs Bolt.
I think Spark fits better than Bolt in SF3, seeing that lightning is just a giant spark of electricity, and the spell is just multiple sparks of electricity per cast, not just one single bolt that hits just one time. Plus I think it sounds somewhat better.

Desoul vs Soul Steal
I personally prefer Soul Steal, not only because I like alliteration, but also due to the fact that it is, in essence, a somewhat different skill than Desoul was? My memory might be failing me, but if I am not mistaken, Desoul would either kill or miss in the previous iterations of the series, whereas Soul Steal, at minimum, causes some damage even if it doesn't kill the target.

Re: Revisiting Established Spell Names

PostPosted: Fri Sep 27 2019 11:23am
by Moogie
While Bolt and Desoul have certain nostalgia value to me, the original Japanese releases on the Mega Drive (including SitD) had them named Spark and Soul Steal, which I've always thought sounded cooler. Plus, doesn't one of the VA in SFIII (probably Synbios') shout "SPAAKU!" when casting Spark?

Don't get me wrong, I love the original games so much, but there were a lot of localisation errors and downright omissions.

Re: Revisiting Established Spell Names

PostPosted: Fri Sep 27 2019 11:47am
by legalize freedom
Moogie wrote:While Bolt and Desoul have certain nostalgia value to me, the original Japanese releases on the Mega Drive (including SitD) had them named Spark and Soul Steal, which I've always thought sounded cooler. Plus, doesn't one of the VA in SFIII (probably Synbios') shout "SPAAKU!" when casting Spark?

Don't get me wrong, I love the original games so much, but there were a lot of localisation errors and downright omissions.


Great info, Moogie. I didn't know the JP versions of 1 and 2 were different than the English releases in this regard.

Re: Revisiting Established Spell Names

PostPosted: Fri Sep 27 2019 5:17pm
by rid1ey
legalize freedom wrote:
Moogie wrote:While Bolt and Desoul have certain nostalgia value to me, the original Japanese releases on the Mega Drive (including SitD) had them named Spark and Soul Steal, which I've always thought sounded cooler. Plus, doesn't one of the VA in SFIII (probably Synbios') shout "SPAAKU!" when casting Spark?

Don't get me wrong, I love the original games so much, but there were a lot of localisation errors and downright omissions.


Great info, Moogie. I didn't know the JP versions of 1 and 2 were different than the English releases in this regard.


Soul Steal love that name and love that spell. When it sucks the Soul out some big ol' 130HP beast.

I'd give my right arm to be able to cast that in real life :D Pachinko Death!

I think it's a real nerve wracking spell to have cast on your force though. I'm sure there is a multi - hit version too...

I finished your English Translation last night ...I did all 3 Scenarios. All who worked on it I applaud your amazing skill and dedication! It's like wronging a right! I think Scenario 2 turned out to be my favourite ...possibly due to the fun banter between Syntesis and Uryudo. Fantastic work and you should all be very proud... Thank You!

Re: Revisiting Established Spell Names

PostPosted: Wed Oct 09 2019 6:37am
by DomingoRules!
Despite the fact that the verdict so far is leaning towards keeping the spell names the same, playing the game earlier today got me wondering about this discussion of spell names, but in regards to another that seems to have been ignored in this discussion: Tornado. Similarly to how we're discussing the names of Spark and Soul Steal here, and whether Bolt and Desoul should be used instead, has there ever been any discussion or consideration of changing Tornado to Blast on similar grounds?

Granted Blast is a misleading, and poor name for wind magic, I'm just wondering more out of curiosity. Like, was it not added to this discussion as well on purpose? Or is the spell so forgettable that it just wasn't even considered?

Re: Revisiting Established Spell Names

PostPosted: Wed Oct 09 2019 6:17pm
by legalize freedom
As mentioned in the first post, it was excluded since the spell animation is so different and so thoroughly described by Tornado.

Re: Revisiting Established Spell Names

PostPosted: Wed Oct 09 2019 6:48pm
by DomingoRules!
legalize freedom wrote:As mentioned in the first post, it was excluded since the spell animation is so different and so thoroughly described by Tornado.

All right. I must've either forgotten about that, or overlooked it entirely. Either way, as I said myself, Blast is a terrible name for wind-elemental magic. Just thought it was worth noting, since much like Bolt/Spark, and Desoul/Soul Steal, Tornado seems to be directly derived from Blast in that it's likely intended to be the same spell.

Re: Revisiting Established Spell Names

PostPosted: Wed Oct 30 2019 12:30pm
by legalize freedom
A big thank you for everyone who responded to this poll. It was informative in more than the obvious way.

It seems the original Japanese SF1 and SF2 used what could be translated as Spark and Soul Steal, so that would lead us to the conclusion that the localizations of SF1 and SF2, etc were the ones at fault, so to speak.

Not that we are bound by that, but considering the results, it is comforting that the "correct" names will end up in the translation patch.

It was close for Bolt vs Spark. I always hope that the decisions we make not only feel right with the series and lore, but are popular as well. Sometimes there is strong support for multiple options as in this case, and a decision must be made. And it is staying as it was after all. No change is usually popular.

These results will be upheld in V21 which will be released soon!