安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語(日文)
한국어(韓文)
ไทย(泰文)
Български(保加利亞文)
Čeština(捷克文)
Dansk(丹麥文)
Deutsch(德文)
English(英文)
Español - España(西班牙文 - 西班牙)
Español - Latinoamérica(西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲)
Ελληνικά(希臘文)
Français(法文)
Italiano(義大利文)
Bahasa Indonesia(印尼語)
Magyar(匈牙利文)
Nederlands(荷蘭文)
Norsk(挪威文)
Polski(波蘭文)
Português(葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙)
Português - Brasil(葡萄牙文 - 巴西)
Română(羅馬尼亞文)
Русский(俄文)
Suomi(芬蘭文)
Svenska(瑞典文)
Türkçe(土耳其文)
tiếng Việt(越南文)
Українська(烏克蘭文)
回報翻譯問題
A lot of older games have no problem accepting any old resolution you throw at them. That's why I hated that stupid 4k craze that was going on from last year and on, where PC ports will have 4k (or any other resolution) listed as some kind of box feature checklist. Like, really? Resolution has always been "whatever your monitor can do, will be supported." I can load up games from the mid 90s and they'll support 4k no problem. It bothers me tremendously how cheap PC game development is getting nowadays.
My findings have been the opposite. Most of my old 3D accelerated games support any resolution I throw at them. Sometimes you need to manually apply the resolution through the console or ini/cfg files, but I have yet to really find a 3D accelerated game that doesn't accept 4k.
This game doesn't control particularly well with anything, but it is best with a controller. The 2nd and 3rd game are better by far with a m+k.
game's old and programmed that way so don't expect any benefits from running it on 144 fps or anything alike.
How about 90 FPS? Does the game work well at that frame rate?