Gendered Meaning Loss in the Simplified Chinese Localization of “Archmother”

[eurekasavonarola]

Since my previous post has been blocked for no reasonand no team member has responded I have decided to repost it. It was frustrating to see that my post had been blocked yet no action was taken. I'm super disappointed with the game localization and the team.

In Jan 22 major update, the two opposing forces in the game are named “Hidden King” and “Archmother.” In the Simplified Chinese localization, these two terms have been rendered as “隐王” (Hidden King) and “源祖（Archmother）”

As a female player, I believe that the concept of “mother” has not been adequately represented in the Simplified Chinese localization. The word mother carries profound implications related to motherhood, matrilineality, and feminine origin. Semantically, archmother represents “the highest level of maternal authority combined with the position of origin.”

However, the current Simplified Chinese translation “源”“祖” clearly corresponds to concepts ”ancestor“ and ”origin“, rather than to mother. As a result, the explicitly feminine imagery embedded in the original term is significantly weakened or erased. In contrast, the localization of “Hidden King” retains the word “王” (king), which in the Chinese linguistic and cultural context is strongly marked as a male primary gender category, with king conventionally contrasted with queen. This asymmetry is therefore particularly striking.

This issue is not an isolated case within the field of Simplified Chinese localization. Due to the long-standing patriarchal social structure in China, male-centered perspectives often dominate linguistic choices. For example, in the documentary QUEENS | National Geographic, the word power, which contextually refers to political and social power, was localized into Chinese as “能量” (energy). This translation choice prompted significant feedback and criticism from female audiences on Chinese social media platforms, as it diluted the concept of power and its gendered implications.

For these reasons, I respectfully urge the development team to pay closer attention to such details when reviewing localization decisions.

As a graduate of Simon Fraser University BA in Linguistics and University of Ottawa MA in Linguistics, a Deadlock player, a Simplified Chinese localization translator for GPORTAL game servers, and a woman, I would suggest that archmother could be translated as “始母,” “母神,” “祖母,” or “源母.” and so on.
The current translation being used, however, does not accurately reflect the meaning or the gendered symbolism of the original term therefore is unacceptable.

 

[ReportingBugs]

Since my previous post has been blocked for no reasonand no team member has responded I have decided to repost it. It was frustrating to see that my post had been blocked yet no action was taken. I'm super disappointed with the game localization and the team.

In Jan 22 major update, the two opposing forces in the game are named “Hidden King” and “Archmother.” In the Simplified Chinese localization, these two terms have been rendered as “隐王” (Hidden King) and “源祖（Archmother）”

As a female player, I believe that the concept of “mother” has not been adequately represented in the Simplified Chinese localization. The word mother carries profound implications related to motherhood, matrilineality, and feminine origin. Semantically, archmother represents “the highest level of maternal authority combined with the position of origin.”

However, the current Simplified Chinese translation “源”“祖” clearly corresponds to concepts ”ancestor“ and ”origin“, rather than to mother. As a result, the explicitly feminine imagery embedded in the original term is significantly weakened or erased. In contrast, the localization of “Hidden King” retains the word “王” (king), which in the Chinese linguistic and cultural context is strongly marked as a male primary gender category, with king conventionally contrasted with queen. This asymmetry is therefore particularly striking.

This issue is not an isolated case within the field of Simplified Chinese localization. Due to the long-standing patriarchal social structure in China, male-centered perspectives often dominate linguistic choices. For example, in the documentary QUEENS | National Geographic, the word power, which contextually refers to political and social power, was localized into Chinese as “能量” (energy). This translation choice prompted significant feedback and criticism from female audiences on Chinese social media platforms, as it diluted the concept of power and its gendered implications.

For these reasons, I respectfully urge the development team to pay closer attention to such details when reviewing localization decisions.

As a graduate of Simon Fraser University BA in Linguistics and University of Ottawa MA in Linguistics, a Deadlock player, a Simplified Chinese localization translator for GPORTAL game servers, and a woman, I would suggest that archmother could be translated as “始母,” “母神,” “祖母,” or “源母.” and so on.
The current translation being used, however, does not accurately reflect the meaning or the gendered symbolism of the original term therefore is unacceptable.

I mean, you have to understand these are developers from the west. Their localisation skills are questionable at times, as evident by other language localisations (I know some Spainish and Portuguese, for instance), so there isn't any personal offence meant by this. The term "unacceptable" for a language localisation seems a bit personal, especially considering Deadlock would not fix any of China's problems you critique, nor is there any personal aspect reflected in the localisation from Valve - Valve just wants to make cool things!

Now, I am not too familiar with China, but localisation may risk offending other members of the Chinese, which may include the government. Would the government approve, for example, the patriarchial power base in China? You know, the whole preference of sons over daughters, especially considering the one child policy, vai sex-selected abortion. So you have to be careful for what you wish for. Is it worth the localisation if it means Deadlock may get restricted in China or be accused of pushing western feminist propaganda?

Something to think about. And for the Devs as well.

 

[Lovely_Squid]

你就像一个弱智一样在一个没有活人的论坛发表自己无人在意的抗议，如果你这么喜欢拐父权社会对女性的压迫我建议你去小红书和你的集美共振一起探讨黑黑的猴和父系社会的奥秘。学历再高也掩盖不了你是一个本质的脑残。

 

[eurekasavonarola]

I mean, you have to understand these are developers from the west. Their localisation skills are questionable at times, as evident by other language localisations (I know some Spainish and Portuguese, for instance), so there isn't any personal offence meant by this. The term "unacceptable" for a language localisation seems a bit personal, especially considering Deadlock would not fix any of China's problems you critique, nor is there any personal aspect reflected in the localisation from Valve - Valve just wants to make cool things!

Now, I am not too familiar with China, but localisation may risk offending other members of the Chinese, which may include the government. Would the government approve, for example, the patriarchial power base in China? You know, the whole preference of sons over daughters, especially considering the one child policy, vai sex-selected abortion. So you have to be careful for what you wish for. Is it worth the localisation if it means Deadlock may get restricted in China or be accused of pushing western feminist propaganda?

Something to think about. And for the Devs as well.

I get the point you're making, that the developers likely have no ill intent, and that localization can be tricky, especially across different cultural and political contexts. I don’t disagree with that. But I think that framing misses the core issue. First, “no bad intentions” doesn’t make something immune to criticism. Localization is part of the product, and like any other part, it should be open to evaluation. When people describe a localization as “unacceptable,” they are assessing the quality of the output, not attacking the developers personally. Interpreting that as something “too personal” shifts the discussion away from the actual problem. The idea that Valve “just wants to make cool things” may well be true, but intent and outcome are not the same. A lack of malice doesn’t guarantee a good result. Pointing out flaws in localization is not about assigning blame — it’s about highlighting where the product falls short of reasonable expectations.

I think bringing in broader concerns about Chinese society or potential government reactions is a bit of a leap. Most localization feedback is about linguistic accuracy, tone, and cultural coherence — not about pushing ideological positions. Improving translation quality does not inherently increase political risk. This isn’t about demanding special treatment or projecting values onto the game. It’s simply about expecting a consistent level of quality across languages. Acknowledging that there’s room for improvement doesn’t contradict understanding the developers’ intentions — those two positions can coexist.

 

[eurekasavonarola]

你就像一个弱智一样在一个没有活人的论坛发表自己无人在意的抗议，如果你这么喜欢拐父权社会对女性的压迫我建议你去小红书和你的集美共振一起探讨黑黑的猴和父系社会的奥秘。学历再高也掩盖不了你是一个本质的脑残。

If your goal is to engage in a discussion, then this kind of response doesn’t move anything forward. It replaces arguments with personal attacks, which usually signals that there isn’t much substance left to address the actual points being made. You’re free to disagree with my position, but disagreement should be expressed by engaging with the reasoning, not by dismissing it or trying to discredit the person behind it. If you believe my argument about localization or cultural context is flawed, then point out where and why. Otherwise, this kind of rhetoric only undermines your own credibility.

 

[Lovely_Squid]

If your goal is to engage in a discussion, then this kind of response doesn’t move anything forward. It replaces arguments with personal attacks, which usually signals that there isn’t much substance left to address the actual points being made. You’re free to disagree with my position, but disagreement should be expressed by engaging with the reasoning, not by dismissing it or trying to discredit the person behind it. If you believe my argument about localization or cultural context is flawed, then point out where and why. Otherwise, this kind of rhetoric only undermines your own credibility.

If your goal is to engage in a discussion, then this kind of response doesn’t move anything forward. It replaces arguments with personal attacks, which usually signals that there isn’t much substance left to address the actual points being made. You’re free to disagree with my position, but disagreement should be expressed by engaging with the reasoning, not by dismissing it or trying to discredit the person behind it. If you believe my argument about localization or cultural context is flawed, then point out where and why. Otherwise, this kind of rhetoric only undermines your own credibility.

我不需要参加你的讨论因为这根本没有意义，你只是在这里像一个泼妇一样给每个游戏以女性叙事圈地，网络暴力deadlock中文本地化人员，给他们扣上不尊重女性、父权社会加害人的帽子后拍拍屁股走人寻找下一个“辱女”的游戏。
就像你对《黑神话悟空》和《杯杯倒满》所做的一样。

 

[ReportingBugs]

I get the point you're making, that the developers likely have no ill intent, and that localization can be tricky, especially across different cultural and political contexts. I don’t disagree with that. But I think that framing misses the core issue. First, “no bad intentions” doesn’t make something immune to criticism. Localization is part of the product, and like any other part, it should be open to evaluation. When people describe a localization as “unacceptable,” they are assessing the quality of the output, not attacking the developers personally. Interpreting that as something “too personal” shifts the discussion away from the actual problem. The idea that Valve “just wants to make cool things” may well be true, but intent and outcome are not the same. A lack of malice doesn’t guarantee a good result. Pointing out flaws in localization is not about assigning blame — it’s about highlighting where the product falls short of reasonable expectations.

I think bringing in broader concerns about Chinese society or potential government reactions is a bit of a leap. Most localization feedback is about linguistic accuracy, tone, and cultural coherence — not about pushing ideological positions. Improving translation quality does not inherently increase political risk. This isn’t about demanding special treatment or projecting values onto the game. It’s simply about expecting a consistent level of quality across languages. Acknowledging that there’s room for improvement doesn’t contradict understanding the developers’ intentions — those two positions can coexist.

Sure, as evident by the future commentator (writing in Chinese), I sensed some personal offense, stemming to some deep seated controversy, which I was trying to clear up. I can tell there is a personal time bomb ticking, especially when the person felt they needed to preface they were a woman, and their credientals, for something that was simply a poor localisation, stemming from cultural ignorance - hence, my point. You should not feel your life worth is undermined by a video game translation - especially if there is no intent or realistic possible way.

That being said, you have to understand that when you make a product to be commericalised, you have to make sure it is in approval of the censors, goverments, etc. That means, no nazi imagery for Germany, no themes of sexualised incest in the UK, and potentially there is concern of displaying people of certain ethincities (as evident in the China's release of the Star Wars - the force awaken with the character Finn), blasphemy themes in the Middle East, displays of homosexuality, etc.

My point was the complete opposite of pushing an agenda. My point is you need to gain approval (or rather not upset) agendas - or else.

Hence, my point about being careful for what you wish for. If you end up upsetting or being in the disapproval of a Government, a censoring body like the FCC in America, then your game may not even come out for that country. Is it worth matching some accuracy, if it means that game gets nuked from a geographical market and outlawed or unrecognised? It's not worth the trade off - if that happens.

 

[eurekasavonarola]

我不需要参加你的讨论因为这根本没有意义，你只是在这里像一个泼妇一样给每个游戏以女性叙事圈地，网络暴力deadlock中文本地化人员，给他们扣上不尊重女性、父权社会加害人的帽子后拍拍屁股走人寻找下一个“辱女”的游戏。
就像你对《黑神话悟空》和《杯杯倒满》所做的一样。

I’m sorry that you feel frustrated and angered by my comments, but that still doesn’t justify responding with personal attacks instead of engaging with what I actually said.

Raising the issue of female narrative or pointing out a specific mistranslation is not cyber harassment, nor is it an attempt to target individual localizers. It is a straightforward critique of localization quality. The only reason I was able to notice and point out the issue so quickly is precisely because I have actively played Deadlock almost everyday. I care about this game, and I want it to improve, not to “attack and move on,” as you assume. My concern is that when localization contains subtle biases or inaccuracies, it can affect how different players perceive the game, especially in this case female players who are keen to wording. Pointing that out is not about assigning moral labels to developers; it’s about ensuring the product meets a reasonable standard and doesn’t alienate parts of its player base.

As for examples like Black Myth: Wukong and Cup Refilling, the fact that they have been criticized by Chinese female players actually reinforces my point. It shows that female players are a visible and engaged part of the audience whose perspectives matter. Dismissing those concerns outright doesn’t make them disappear — it just ignores a segment of the player community. You don’t have to agree with my perspective. But reducing it to bad faith assumptions and personal accusations doesn’t address the argument.

 

[eurekasavonarola]

Sure, as evident by the future commentator (writing in Chinese), I sensed some personal offense, stemming to some deep seated controversy, which I was trying to clear up. I can tell there is a personal time bomb ticking, especially when the person felt they needed to preface they were a woman, and their credientals, for something that was simply a poor localisation, stemming from cultural ignorance - hence, my point. You should not feel your life worth is undermined by a video game translation - especially if there is no intent or realistic possible way.

That being said, you have to understand that when you make a product to be commericalised, you have to make sure it is in approval of the censors, goverments, etc. That means, no nazi imagery for Germany, no themes of sexualised incest in the UK, and potentially there is concern of displaying people of certain ethincities (as evident in the China's release of the Star Wars - the force awaken with the character Finn), blasphemy themes in the Middle East, displays of homosexuality, etc.

My point was the complete opposite of pushing an agenda. My point is you need to gain approval (or rather not upset) agendas - or else.

Hence, my point about being careful for what you wish for. If you end up upsetting or being in the disapproval of a Government, a censoring body like the FCC in America, then your game may not even come out for that country. Is it worth matching some accuracy, if it means that game gets nuked from a geographical market and outlawed or unrecognised? It's not worth the trade off - if that happens.

I think your argument mixes several separate issues in a way that doesn’t quite hold up logically. You frame this as a choice between “accuracy” and “market access under censorship.” But that’s a false dichotomy. Most localization feedback — including mine — is about linguistic precision, tone, and avoiding awkward or biased phrasing. These are standard quality concerns, not political statements that would realistically trigger regulatory issues. Improving translation quality is not the same as “pushing an agenda.”

Your examples about censorship (Germany, the UK, China, etc.) are valid in their own contexts, but they apply to content-level restrictions, not to ordinary localization quality. Adjusting phrasing to be more accurate or less biased does not fall into the same category as restricted imagery or prohibited themes.

The idea that it’s “not worth the trade-off” assumes that better localization meaningfully increases the risk of a game being banned. There’s no clear evidence for that in this case. On the contrary, poor localization can harm user experience and alienate players — which is also a real cost for a commercial product.

So I don’t think this is about “being careful what you wish for.” It’s about recognizing that quality and accessibility across languages are part of what makes a game successful in the first place.

Thanks for discussing this issue with me and offering a different perspective anyways.