Steam'i Yükleyin
giriş
|
dil
简体中文 (Basitleştirilmiş Çince)
繁體中文 (Geleneksel Çince)
日本語 (Japonca)
한국어 (Korece)
ไทย (Tayca)
Български (Bulgarca)
Čeština (Çekçe)
Dansk (Danca)
Deutsch (Almanca)
English (İngilizce)
Español - España (İspanyolca - İspanya)
Español - Latinoamérica (İspanyolca - Latin Amerika)
Ελληνικά (Yunanca)
Français (Fransızca)
Italiano (İtalyanca)
Bahasa Indonesia (Endonezce)
Magyar (Macarca)
Nederlands (Hollandaca)
Norsk (Norveççe)
Polski (Lehçe)
Português (Portekizce - Portekiz)
Português - Brasil (Portekizce - Brezilya)
Română (Rumence)
Русский (Rusça)
Suomi (Fince)
Svenska (İsveççe)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamca)
Українська (Ukraynaca)
Bir çeviri sorunu bildirin
Popularity doesn't equal quality. And usually with games, the success of one entry in the series is tied just as much, if not more, to the quality of the PREVIOUS title as to the title in question. 5's immediate success strongly implies that it's because a ton of people played previous games, mostly 4, in the years between the two releases, and thus were excited for 5.
I'm not agreeing that 5 is bad, because I haven't even played it, but pointing to sales as proof of quality is one reason why devs end up fundamentally changing the formula of their games and often tanking series--they often fail to realize they are building on success and instead look at their big seller in a vacuum.