安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文(繁体中文)
日本語(日语)
한국어(韩语)
ไทย(泰语)
български(保加利亚语)
Čeština(捷克语)
Dansk(丹麦语)
Deutsch(德语)
English(英语)
Español-España(西班牙语 - 西班牙)
Español - Latinoamérica(西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲)
Ελληνικά(希腊语)
Français(法语)
Italiano(意大利语)
Bahasa Indonesia(印度尼西亚语)
Magyar(匈牙利语)
Nederlands(荷兰语)
Norsk(挪威语)
Polski(波兰语)
Português(葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙)
Português-Brasil(葡萄牙语 - 巴西)
Română(罗马尼亚语)
Русский(俄语)
Suomi(芬兰语)
Svenska(瑞典语)
Türkçe(土耳其语)
Tiếng Việt(越南语)
Українська(乌克兰语)
报告翻译问题
Let's be frank: Steam makes finding games accessible. As such, we don't need one-glance scores and throw-away one liners to make a decision. A more holistic approach to reviewing games means that we can get a better feel for the game. Regardless of how important saving dollar bills is, the real benefit of a "thick and hearty review" (as you describe it) is to save our time from playing a game which wasn't ever going to suit us.
I don't mind reading a bit more, because it often pays off later. There is not a lot of nuance in reviews such as: "4/5 good graphics, 2/5 game length." Don't these other reviewers know that most games show the graphics in screenshots, and that Steam displays players' played-time? Useless reviews..
*followed*