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
That isn't to say bioshock isn't different or atmospheric, but I just preffered metro. From the homemade guns to the having to scrounge filters to breathe on the surface, it just has so much going for it.
Also, bioshock is looking dated now, with low res textures and a fairly standard lighting engine. Metro is still looking amazing (better than most modern games) and has one of the best lighting engines I have ever seen, and that just adds so much to a game set in dank, dark tunnels, you could really believe the world you are in.
But in the end I would say let it come down to which you like the look of more from gameplay videos and just the general art style, because either way you go you will experience gaming at it's best.
BioShock also has excellent atmosphere, although it's graphics are now dated. It still looks good, but it can't hold a candle to Metro 2033.
However, I think BioShock trumps Metro 2033 in terms of gameplay. Metro 2033 doesn't explain all of it's gameplay systems, and the story is unpolished - leaving you guessing why you're going here or doing that.
BioShock is a much tighter experience overall, with much more player agency in gameplay.
That said, both of them are great, and I'm sure you'll be happy either way.
Both are great games though, and had my share of fun playing both of them.