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









the numbers that I gave were being very liberal with my times: effectively 2 minutes to load the game from the executable/library (loading the game felt very front heavy, and after doing some memory profiling on it most things in this game seem to be rather memory efficient after initial creation), and 2 minutes to go through the results screen, evit the game, and wait for sync to complete (steam raises a hissy fit at times if this does not complete before the same game, or any game is launched). I did these considerations if the player is not playing this game on a very fast machine (though I do assume a faster internet connection)
so accounting for small math you were doing between 2, and 2.5 minutes per run your system must have a good performance setup
Used clonehenge on casual and took under an hour
not to mention by even having such a guide in a publicly viewable location means that any marketing statement from braging about such a thing is automatically called into question, and then this method could probably be replicated on any device that the date can be manually altered. calling the metric into question on all of it.