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




























Also, calling me "functionally illiterate" and having "no reading comprehension" and then say it's not an insult... classy.
''The physical act of love is a noble thing, no matter who does it with whom.''
...emphasis on the 'no matter who does it with whom', and then think that the intention of the precept is about "pre-marital lovin', not free love in the sense of non-lover pawns engaging in lovin' "(sic)
I could be wrong; it's basically impossible to prove a negative, and I don't know how to dig into the code. I've just never seen non-lovers have lovin' outside of Intimacy.
moreover, the descriptions are already tweaked to reflect any changes intimacy makes and the new precepts are explained pretty plainly. I don't know what more I could add besides 'WARNING!!! WARNING!!! FREE LOVIN' MEANS FREE LOVIN' BEWARE'' in all caps