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
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.