A opinion article on "nuance", and the reason why I find the initial English dialogue of SotN less impactful than the original, Japanese one. Before reading, keep in mind that this loaded with opinion. Although I have gathered evidence, I am not trying to prove that someone is wrong or that my taste is superior to everyone else's, but only to form an analysis of how one dialogue compares with the other on my personal perspective.
The dialogue between Richter and Dracula in SotN is well known. "What is man?" etc etc. Dracula wants to point out that religion is as pernicious to man as he is, and that Richter is being an hypocrite by pointing out that Dracula is a problem when he is supposed to know the truth within himself. The topic of the conversation is "Hypocrisy." They keep pointing the hypocrisy on each other until a fight ensues. Remember the dialogue:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2IhsPxJPdkHowever, in the (successful) attempt at creating a memorable dialogue, the localization lost something of profound importance in the original scene: The content of the dialogue, and a very important characterization detail, which I will explain in the end. Before I start, watch a translated version of the Japanese dialogue:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Oma-VUECmcIn the Japanese version, the dialogue is not about "hypocrisy", but about the "nature of justice". What or who defines what "justice" is? Dracula argues that the one who has "power" is the one who makes something "right", and the powerful are those who pass judgment. He uses religion/creed to demonstrate how humankind uses subterfuge to impose its own desires on others, which would be just another way of expressing power. Richter replies that it is not "mere power" that commands humanity, but mutual respect and generosity, and that what Dracula thinks is just a byproduct of his selfishness.
The dialogue in English, although memorable, has little depth (to the point of sounding nonsensical at times) and slightly changes the characterization of both characters. For example:
-In English, Richter accuses Dracula of enslaving the souls of men, and ties the point by saying that humanity does not need "saviors" like him. There is no elaboration of how mankind stands up to Dracula's accusations of "the same can be said about all religions." Richter simply says that he's talking nonsense "because his soul is empty" and that's it.
-In Japanese, however, Richter emphasizes moral values as what truly guide humanity, as a refutation of what Dracula says about religion to be just another method of exerting power. For Richter, Dracula is not wrong ONLY because he acts selfishly, but also because he does not understand the motives of mankind, something he has to verbally explain to refute Dracula. This ties back to Richter's opening line: "This world was not meant for the likes of you!". Dracula is a demon and lost his humanity. It's not his right to dictate what is justice or not to humans, because the world is for humanity, something he ceased to be and does not understand.
-In English, Dracula dismisses everything that Richter said as hypocrisy when he responds with "What is a man? A miserable little pile of secrets." This quote (coming from "Antimémoires" by André Malraux) does not mean that man is insignificant, but that man "is what he hides, not what he claims to be." What Dracula is saying here is that Richter is a liar, a hypocrite, and implied that he knows what Richter thinks better than Richter himself. In the English version, Dracula has his head made up already, and damn what Richter thinks, because Richter is lying to him and to himself.
-In Japanese, despite the sarcasm, Dracula opens the chance for Richter's argument to be right, precisely because Richter not only immediately retorts Dracula, but does so with an actual argument. He does not just say "Dracula, just shut up" but offers REASONS to justify what he thinks, and where Dracula's argument is wrong, what Dracula's equation is not accounting for. And then, unlike the English version, where Dracula begins the battle because he's tired of debating and thinks he's right ("Enough talk!"), here he wants to start fighting because only then can a point of view prevail. That is, the
struggle itself is an extension of the debate.
SotN's Japanese dialogue is a redux version of the dialogue at the end of Rondo of Blood. There it is possible to verify more clearly that Dracula is genuinely making room for doubt, and since it happens only after the combat itself, the dialogue ends with a clearer "we will meet again, just remember that I will return as long as greedy humans exist", indicating that "the debate continues as long as I return, buddy." It's not Dracula throwing a "OF COURSE I'M RIGHT! I'M DYING, BUT I'M STILL RIGHT!" tantrum, but rather a more skeptical Dracula "You have a argument, and I have another -- the one who stands at the end is the one who will be correct. For today we are finished, but I come back to continue."
What I think is that the two are much better debaters in Japanese than in English: P
Yet, even after all of this, we kind of already have the tools to know who's right. It is here that comes the detail about nuances that was completely lost in the English localization of SotN, since the content of the conversation being "hypocrisy" does not leave much room for what I will talk about next, and that is meant for the player to pick on.
Do you remember that I said above that the Japanese dialogue is about the "nature of justice"? Well, we call an individual who applies justice a "Judge". Although there are corrupt judges, the essential picture we have of this entity is that it is the only one adequately equipped to understand and apply justice. This is who, in the end, not only has deep knowledge of the rules and must hear all sides of the case, but is the one that can even bend the rules to achieve a fair verdict in a case that they preside.
"Richter" is a German name, and means "Judge." Dracula is the one who arises to push humanity to damnation -- its accuser, its prosecutor. Isn't it much more appropriate that the subject of a debate between a character called "Judge" and another with the title "Accuser" be "Justice" instead of "Hypocrisy"? Perhaps this symbolism has escaped the localization, or perhaps they have considered the original content too philosophical. Or even still, they could've believed that the original gave Dracula too much of leeway to be right, and instead opted for a more stereotypical, high-and-mighty depiction of Dracula that we are used to in the West.
Whatever the reason, my opinion is that the English localization of this dialogue is memorable, but too shallow. It can be boiled down to one calling the other an hypocrite with no convincing basis until one of them decides that they heard too much and goes for the neck of the opponent. I think Dracula lost quite a bit of development on the english version, despite being written as a well-educated villain.
And that's it! I just felt like sharing this over here since I wrote that how-many-months-ago on another place and started some discussion (about many things, from the value of a literal localization to the characters' motivations themselves). I imagined it would be a good place to post it and see if the same happens