Instale o Steam
iniciar sessão
|
idioma
简体中文 (Chinês simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chinês tradicional)
日本語 (Japonês)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandês)
Български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Tcheco)
Dansk (Dinamarquês)
Deutsch (Alemão)
English (Inglês)
Español-España (Espanhol — Espanha)
Español-Latinoamérica (Espanhol — América Latina)
Ελληνικά (Grego)
Français (Francês)
Italiano (Italiano)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonésio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandês)
Norsk (Norueguês)
Polski (Polonês)
Português (Portugal)
Română (Romeno)
Русский (Russo)
Suomi (Finlandês)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Relatar um problema com a tradução
I used to subscribe to PC Gamer in the 90s when it was a magazine with a CD-DVD demo disc, that company died a long time ago, I don't recognize them any longer...
Pretty much aligns with what I expected, a solid new foundation with some rough edges and some under-developed areas. Not surprising considering it's the studio first foray into this genre.
I have exactly the same opinion. Shills are everywhere in games media today, which is why mainstream games media is ignored by many. None are to be trusted.
https://www.ign.com/articles/ara-history-untold-review
1. The game has UI issues to deal with the economy system on a larger scale, becoming a chore when you have many cities to manage. No notifications about idle specialists, unused slots, no good ledger-like list of your economy, etc.
2. The diplomacy is very barebones and the "knockout" mechanic that removes civilizations from the game makes diplomacy even less impactful as some of your allies might just disappear.
I don't mind the diplomacy being basic, to be honest, but I do hope UI improvements are something the devs work on the future.