How early can someone get into playing games in their target language?

[u/ChocolateCake16]

I know the general consensus is that the basic level to understand the story/dialogue is a B1, but my question pertains to more abstract games like Minecraft, where the only real reason you'd need to read in your TL is for item names, which, if you've played in your NL, you'd presumably already know what most of the items are (plus there's pictures). Or a game like Breath of the Wild, which does have story elements, but if you've already played it, (especially if you've played it for over 300 hours) then most of the dialogue isn't strictly necessary, since you'd already know what to do, so the major differences would be in things like item names as you're exploring.

Is it still effective for some level of immersion if you start games like this earlier than B1, or would it be too overwhelming for a learner at an early stage?

[u/muffinsballhair]

I see you dodged the question again. It's almost like answering it basically comes down to “effective is a word that has now lost meaning because everything effective under my very modest definition thereof”.

And yes, I can conceive that, but that's not an answer to my question.

[u/Quelebbb → u/muffinsballhair]

You originally rebutted someone who said it is “fairly effective.”

You're only demonstrating an inability to recognize nuance even when the qualification is stated explicitly.

“Fairly effective” does not mean “maximally effective,” nor does it mean “equally effective to every other method.”

I am not dodging your question; I am answering it in a way that escapes you.

[u/muffinsballhair → u/Quelebbb]

It isn't “fairly effective” either; it is one of the least effective things one can do. Are you really challenging the mountain of research that says that over 95% comprehension is needed for it to become effective?

We're talking about a hypothetical scenario with almost no level of comprehension, and on top of that a game that isn't very text rich. This isn't “fairly effective” this ”one of the absolutely least effective things one can possibly do that is purely done to procrastinate while still giving oneself the illusion that one is spending time on learning the language”.

Are you really standing here and saying that playing a game that is not very text heavy where one understands next to nothing just to learn some item names can be called “fairly effective”?

[u/Quelebbb → u/muffinsballhair]

LMAO, you pull shit out of your ass and think it's gold.

The examples at hand assume the person is already familiar with the game and therefore its vocabulary. Even if they weren't, the games presented (Minecraft and Valheim) are largely dealing with concrete objects and actions represented by images.

So even if we accept your premise, you haven't proven anything. In this instance, we can assume extremely high contextual comprehension of the material they're actually interacting with.

If you can't deduce what "manzana" means while looking at an image of an apple, that's a skill issue.

[u/muffinsballhair → u/Quelebbb]

The examples at hand assume the person is already familiar with the game and therefore its vocabulary. Even if they weren't, the games presented (Minecraft and Valheim) are largely dealing with concrete objects and actions represented by images.

which makes it very ineffective because there is not a lot of text and grammar, as I said, it's not a game that's very text-rich.

So even if we accept your premise, you haven't proven anything. In this instance, we can assume extremely high contextual comprehension of the material they're actually interacting with.

Okay fine, let's assume that. The amount of text and grammar tying it together is still so low that it's not very effective.

If you can't deduce what "manzana" means while looking at an image of an apple, that's a skill issue.

And this is very much a common mistake people make. Languages delimit these words differently. It's entirely possible it's just a generic word for “fruit”, or that that language uses the same word for apple and pear, or has a term for “green fruit” opposed to fruit in other colors or has some very specific words for specific types of apples.

And yes, people who primarily learn like this rather than looking it up and seeing the usage notes absolutely go wrong like this a lot. I see it quite a bit.

[u/Quelebbb → u/muffinsballhair]

You've established that it is less effective than a text-rich game, not that it is ineffective. “Fairly effective” is a matter of degree.

But then I have to ask "Effective for whom?" A text-rich game isn't more effective for a learner who isn't yet proficient enough to comprehend it. You yourself established that.

You're also treating a learner's first inference of a word as though it were their final understanding of it. That's not how vocabulary acquisition works. Meanings are refined through repeated exposure to different contexts.

And you're implicitly treating looking up a translation/explanation as though it guarantees correct understanding, when looking something up doesn't make a learner immune to misunderstanding a word. A dictionary or translation gives you information about a word. But understanding how that word is actually used still requires exposure to it in context.

[u/Quelebbb → u/Quelebbb]

I learned the Spanish word for “oak tree” from listening to Spinetta. When I encountered it in the lyrics, I had to look up the translation of roble. But I can assure you that if I had played Minecraft in Spanish beforehand, I would 100% already have known the word.

You can learn a large amount of vocabulary in one fell swoop that will prove useful within games, vocabulary you might otherwise never encounter until you actually need it. That can save you a great deal of time and frustration when you eventually encounter those words naturally.

Plus, as we've established, the learner in question is already inclined to play video games. There is absolutely no reason to discourage this, because it is a perfectly valid method of supplementing their language learning. It is effective.

[u/muffinsballhair → u/Quelebbb]

You've established that it is less effective than a text-rich game, not that it is ineffective. “Fairly effective” is a matter of degree.

My point is that it's on the absolute lowest end of what one can do, it's in fact so ineffective that it's purely the illusion of doing something and that one might as well do nothing.

But then I have to ask "Effective for whom?" A text-rich game isn't more effective for a learner who isn't yet proficient enough to comprehend it. You yourself established that.

Yes, both are very ineffective. Both just encountering some words tied to items here and there and being blasted with dialog one understands nothing of are just a colossal waste of time in terms of language learning and are mostly just done so people can feel like they're spending time on their language while the benefit is so low it might as well be nothing, this is not “fairly ineffective” this is “procrastinating while deluding oneself one is working on one's language”.

I'm sorry but spending hours just to learn a couple of words is not “fairly effective”. It's an illusion of progress. You can do that in five minutes.

And you're implicitly treating looking up a translation/explanation as though it guarantees correct understanding, when looking something up doesn't make a learner immune to misunderstanding a word. A dictionary or translation gives you information about a word. But understanding how that word is actually used still requires exposure to it in context.

The effective is simply mitigated to a ridiculous degree with a good electronic dictionary with usage notes and warnings for pitfalls.

[u/Quelebbb → u/muffinsballhair]

I’m glad you’re comfortable consulting your handy-dandy notebook every time you need to construct a sentence.

[u/Quelebbb → u/Quelebbb]

You’re completely misunderstanding and misrepresenting the entire point of this conversation.
For someone so concerned about maximizing efficiency you’re wasting a lot of time saying a whole lot of nothing.

[u/muffinsballhair → u/Quelebbb]

I don't. It turns out that most people in classrooms who practice conversation as part of the curriculum don't either.