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
It's about the comparison to an ideal optimization. Not the comparison to Red Dead 2 in particular.
so again, wait 6 years and then compare?
His point still stands. Its badly optimised. We shouldn't have to wait 6 years as you suggest.
Sorry, you don't get this post and I don't think you even make an effort to do so.
The 6 years are irrelevant.
The game is badly optimised. Who cares how long it took Rockstar to fix their stuff. It doesnt make it ok that this game runs like poop for A LOT of people.
You can try to compensate for dumb. But most times it's not worth it.