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
I appreciate that you actually took the time to find two articles in response to my question (one of the links is a user blog quoting ZeldaInformer's article), but they hardly show proof of foul play, and that list of "leaked review scores" is laughable.
I've disagreed with many online reviews, including ones from IGN, but I've never once read one and thought that it was so far off the mark that bribery was the only explanation.
The main reason people call foul play is due to the advertising.
We know publishers pay for advertising space, people need to eat so it shouldn't be an issue, but with that will come the question "was a review bought".
When you see a big banner for a game and read a glowing review it does bring a lot of doubt into the websites legitimacy.
It's a known fact that publicists get paid to lie the world around. What world are you living in?