Asenna Steam
kirjaudu sisään
|
kieli
简体中文 (yksinkertaistettu kiina)
繁體中文 (perinteinen kiina)
日本語 (japani)
한국어 (korea)
ไทย (thai)
български (bulgaria)
Čeština (tšekki)
Dansk (tanska)
Deutsch (saksa)
English (englanti)
Español – España (espanja – Espanja)
Español – Latinoamérica (espanja – Lat. Am.)
Ελληνικά (kreikka)
Français (ranska)
Italiano (italia)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesia)
Magyar (unkari)
Nederlands (hollanti)
Norsk (norja)
Polski (puola)
Português (portugali – Portugali)
Português – Brasil (portugali – Brasilia)
Română (romania)
Русский (venäjä)
Svenska (ruotsi)
Türkçe (turkki)
Tiếng Việt (vietnam)
Українська (ukraina)
Ilmoita käännösongelmasta
What did you mean by "underwhelming programming"? The performance of the game isn't great, but this is typical of an idie studio without the resources of a publisher to optimise graphics or use a tailored redering engine.
Actually, the issues the game raises--species die-off's; migrations; etc: are all in tune with what 99% of the science says will happen at the current rate. Although a good chunk of the more recent studies suggest that the worst predictions are off--by like, 60years (as too optimistic).
If anything, the game puts too much stock in nuclear power as an "interim" energy source, and is over-optimistic in general.