OpenGeofiction
We can all agree that OGF is supposed to be like the real world, but does not have actual real-world features. And if something exists in the real world, we avoid having it in OGF.
But, it often happens that we just keep something in OGF, changing nothing but the name (example: German->Gaerman). So basically, we have an OGF version for almost everything, just with a different name. I think this has gone too far - we need to be more imaginative, more inventive, more creative!
Discussion
Comment from zhenkang on 16 April 2017 at 22:41
Maybe we should ask the administration abt this.
Comment from Portopolis on 17 April 2017 at 00:00
I agree, and I am currently trying to make my own funky Hopponese culture that is closer to a less developed Japan mixed with my own American and Nigerian undertones. I don’t want to replicate Japan or Nigeria in my countries that is why Hoppon and Lallemand are no where near the equivalent of either of those nations. Lallemand itself I am thinking of making a language that is essentially a mix Nigerian languages and island languages (to blend in with my surroundings). I also am trying to avoid real world development and come up with my own cool ideas. the problem with this though the further you stray from real world examples, the further you stray from realism. It is very easy for you to straddle the borderline of what is realistic when you try to do your own thing for your nations.
Comment from BMSOUZA on 17 April 2017 at 00:26
I (almost completely) agree. Lets go:
As I commented in the topic about an OGF-Israel and OGF-Bible, I dont like the ideas of OGF-Israel, OGF-USA, OGF-France, etc.
We have examples like Ardisphere and Mahhal, with a rich culture in each one (both by Luciano). Gobrassanya and Khaiwoon are other nice places. Sarepava also give us a good example with Karolia, and I try to do something like this in Goytakanya, with a religion “christian-based” but “looks-like-muslims”, and a completely invented language.
In the other hand, obviously some OGF-countries are inspired in real countries. And the languages, also obviously, are the same we have in real world, hehehe.
Well, as I am trying to explain, I dont “like” the idea of (example…) a OGF-Germany, but I dont see any problem in OGF-countries speaking german (or gaerman, hehehe). Maybe the idea of the creator of this country is create fictional areas to his real neighborhood in real Germany.
But I like very much this topic, we need create new cultures in OGF! hehehe
Bruno Moreira
Comment from martinum4 on 17 April 2017 at 07:36
A completely new language would be too much of a hassle anyway, you’d have to create words for everything, invent grammatical rules and all that. For me it’s more than enough to transcript, like I’m doing in my Deserterria-State, it’s German transcribed to Inuktitut, so there are a few letters missing and you have to work around that somehow, see http://opengeofiction.net/node/57347749 as an example for that.
I also think that your mapping style should be influenced by the politics of your country, for example, if you’re building a new railway line, are you going to destroy houses for it? Or if you’re building a mall, do you cut down your old city center, or place it outside of town? As for me I’m trying to find a good balance between keeping the heritage and actually redeveloping things.
In my mind, my country is a mix between Germany (language, culture), Italy (corruption, deep state) and the Swiss (railways), with a hint of underdeveloped and sparsely populated north.
I hope this writeup helps a bit.
kind regards
Martin
Comment from Aces California on 17 April 2017 at 09:48
I wrote this once before my computer crashed so I’ll jump right to what my conclusion was. What I was saying is that one nation shouldn’t be isolated and based 100% on a real world nation. My nation Tierajas-Verdes is a wide diverse mix of references, from real world references from the Bay of Bengal, so Castellan/Colonial style that is used ALL over OGF, and the history, culture, peoples, and language all it’s own but based around it’s neighbors in the Liberan Peninsula.
As for using real world languages, I can see no real issue with using them since manufacturing a purely new language is quite hard for some, including me. I think if you want to make a fully fictional-language that is great on you, you have an understanding of it better than others, but for people who don’t understand a single bit about fictional languages, sticking to an established language is better. The only option around this would be to fabricate a common fictional language that is detailed enough that anybody new or experienced to use in lieu of English. But I wouldn’t wish that challenge on anybody unless they’re specifically interested in doing it.
Comment from zhenkang on 17 April 2017 at 09:58
To a certain extent, I agree with this. We really should be more creative as this is one of the purpose of OGF. However, sometimes creativity may get a bit too far and become more unrealistic (See http://wiki.opengeofiction.net/wiki/index.php/OGF:Verisimilitude), or sometimes people like to infuse RW elements into this world. I think the infusion of RW elements makes us more comfortable with when creating this world rather than creating a whole new world out of imagination (which is more difficult).
Some things from the RW are to be kept though, like once I talk about chemical elements in our world here.
Comment from Aces California on 17 April 2017 at 10:43
I think the fundamentals of math and science that are hard to change or make pure fiction out of needs to stay for sure Zhenkang. However, I think as with everything, the naming can be changed?
Lets say that we put our heads together to turn Ingerish into a true-fictional language somewhat based on English (for example, we could go with a more Caribbean infused English which uses a lot of double vowels. e.g.
Lets saay that wee put or heads togeter t turn Ingerish int a tuee-ficionaal laanguage somewha baased o English (fo eksample, wee could go wit a moore Caribbeeaan infuuseed English wich uses a lot o doouble voweels. ect.
But that’s just a wild random example xD In that world Oxygen might become Oxiigeen.
The question will become, how deep do we want to stray from the original language?
Comment from Leowezy on 17 April 2017 at 10:58
To chip in on the language debate; although I try my best to develop Kojolese into a fully functional con-lang, for the purpose of mapping you don’t need that. For example you can completely ignore verb inflections and still come up with well thought out and realistic names for your cities.
And to repeat my usual stand in this discussion, I think both mixing real-world elements in ways that don’t usually go together in the real world and especially coming up with completely new ideas and concepts is what makes OGF really interesting to me.
Comment from Myrcia on 17 April 2017 at 10:59
Welcome to the fault line between verisimilitude and fiction. Exploring it is part of the fun of working in the OGF universe.
Comment from Aces California on 17 April 2017 at 13:51
I can agree that treading the line is the funnest part of mapping the OGF universe!
Comment from Alessa on 17 April 2017 at 16:21
I’d like to echo Leowezy here. New mixtures of real-world elements is creative. Not everything needs to be fresh and original. Part of what makes OGF interesting is that things look logical to our eyes. That means there are real-world elements already baked in: motorways, for example. Who is to say that a motorway would have even developed in this universe? That’s part of what is fun. Take some real world things, but put your own spin and combinations out there. Just don’t copy the real world. There shouldn’t be a name like “Moldavia” to represent a “Moldova.” That’s a proper name. Be original there. Oxygen? Fine. Whatever. Who cares if it is called “oxygen?” (Plus, as I come back to often: is it relevant to the mapping?)
Comment from joschi81 on 17 April 2017 at 17:10
I think that even countries with imaginary cultures and languages in OGF can be less creative than the ones that clearly are based upon existing languages and cultures. For me, the fact that an OGF language/culture is made-up is not an indicator of the degree of creativity of the respective mapper!
I agree that imaginary languages are a very creative part of OGF. However, for me it would be “one step to far”. I like to imagine cities (to cite other comments here: “new mixtures of real-world elements”), and it takes time. Making up languages and cultures also takes time. The problem is: At some point you need to stop “imagining” (by means of: preparing things in your head) and start mapping!
I am satisfied with my degree of creativity in OGF. :) For example, the language “Kalmish” (which in my point of view is the name of the German language in OGF…) is like German, but has a completey different name. Also, I avoid using English loanwords in Kalmish, which is quite a challenge, as especially for many “new” things (technical stuff) there is no German word. Also, the geography of Kalm is quite different from Germany. And the territorial units are different as well: Land -> Region, Kreis -> Kanton.
To conclude: In my point of view, making up imaginary places is enough creativity, even if language and culture are close to the respective rea-world equivalents.
Happy mapping!
Johannes
Comment from isleño on 17 April 2017 at 20:50
Even though I enjoy seeing new and unique cultures and languages, and even though I agree that they can enrich the OGF world… I think the primary purpose of this site is realistically detailed mapping, and for some people that simply doesn’t include cultural or linguistic invention. And I’d say that’s fine. When I see mapping that comes alive with beautifully realistic detail, I love it. I don’t care whether it has unique cultural/linguistic features or not; a lot of the best mapping here doesn’t. So if you like that sort of thing, then great… go for it. But if not, that’s great too. I think there’s room for both kinds in OGF.