Open Discussion: August 13th, 2017
(Last Updated On: August 13, 2017)

The time has rolled around once again for gamers to speak their mind and say anything they want through OAG’s weekly Open Discussion series. The Open Discussion series explores a variety of topics that can be random, which the series itself mostly focuses on video games.

This week’s Open Discussion series has arrived and lets you jot down whatever it is that you wish to type. It’s for those who like to partake in conversations, and you’ll be able to do so right here.

If you enjoy talking about whatever it is that you are about to do or are doing right now, you are more than welcome to share it in this week’s Open Discussion forum in the comment section below. Inserting whatever is on your mind in an Open Discussion also applies to the ones to come.

If you, however, wish to derail the conversation and talk about something unrelated to video games — or whatever the topic is at hand — you are encouraged to change the subject without any penalties. This means there will be no censorship, and if a comment of yours happens to be censored do let us know so that we can restore your comment back.

Now that that is out of the way, this week’s Open Discussion is about video game AI. Oftentimes most games feature an AI algorithm to challenge a player in that the friendly or dangerous artificial intelligence can offer a unique experience or a dull one if not done correctly. With that said, what game have you played that featured an enjoyable or dull AI that changed the game for better or for worse?

Remember, you don’t have to stay on topic, but if you do the topic at hand is about AIs in video games and the experience they bring to whatever type game.


Ads (learn more about our advertising policies here)



About

Ethan was born in glitches, and pursues to find the most game breaking glitches in games. If you need to get in touch use the Contact Page.

  • durka durka

    Games with good ai? Well aside from fear the recent far cry games have good ai, i cant see anything wrong with em, they are wayyyy too accurate with a gun compared to the player but other than that, they are pretty good. Good animations too, those are important.

    See you can make a game with good ai but without good animations and polish, you end up with crysis ai.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SsOl_5OD-M

    • Far Cry’s AI is pretty awful. It’s stilted and rudimentary.

      F.E.A.R., had good AI… and the original Crysis AI at least utilized the environment to their advantage, like ducking out of sight and sneaking through the jungle to attempt flanking maneuvers.

      • VersVlees

        I cannot believe we still have refer to F.E.A.R AI as a golden standard in 2017. (It was a pretty good AI though)

        I think the Unreal Tournament games (UT99, 2003 and 2004)has a good AI for the bot matches. They can play all the game modes and know how to score objectives.

        Too bad AI gets shoved in the dog house by developers. I don’t get the impression they actually work much on AI these days.

        • Too bad AI gets shoved in the dog house by developers. I don’t get the impression they actually work much on AI these days.

          It’s CPU intensive, and when it comes down to balancing resource budgets it’s just easier to skimp on the AI and focus on the other shiny parts of a game, especially for console titles where the Jaguar CPUs aren’t very efficient.

      • Disqusted

        Oh yeah, I remember when F.E.A.R. 2 AI chucked a grenade back at me. I was surprised.

    • Disqusted

      I don’t remember ever seeing the AI do that in Crysis.

      All I remember of Far Cry 2’s combat is the guns kept jamming all the f**king time. I didn’t get very far into it.

  • descent3031

    Why is it that 3rd party AI is often so much better than what the devs come up with? OpenAI wrecked Dendi, but Valve can’t design bots that don’t get stuck and/or feed themselves to the mid tower. XCOM2 has easy to exploit AI with really basic scripts (Like they’ll always shoot a flanked target even if it’s mind controlled, or they won’t ever launch explosives at a single target), yet the long war AI is capable of remembering where you are, using grenades intelligently and so on.

    • RichardGristle

      HL2 AI was pretty great back in the day.

      • descent3031

        I don’t remember it particularly. What stood out?

    • LurkerJK

      I think the XCOM2 ai thing was more about firaxis treating gamers like idiots than incompetence

      I remember when the game came out. I went directly to legendary expecting a challenge like eu’s impossible and all I got was a looooooong sloooooooooow grind but no challenge

      They don’t think we can handle a competent ai, they won’t even trust us with a difficulty option

    • VersVlees

      Modders can be pretty awesome when working on games.

      The Europa Barbarorum mod for Rome Total War combined with the Alexander expansion finally fixed the moronic campaign AI. (It even invaded islands)

      Anyone who played the Total War series knows the AI can be pretty stupid and Creative Assemble didnt do a lot to fix it in the later games.

  • I really prefer games with an enemy AI that willing to give in a challenging experience while having a friendly AI that is pretty smart and know what to do to help you out in pretty dangerous situations. Games like Mass Effect and Dragon’s Dogma are the greatest examples of what I’m talking about.

  • Disqusted

    Zombies are the perfect monster for a lot of games, because they can get
    away with brainless AI whilst having a human-like creature for people
    to mangle, without anyone getting upset about zombie’s rights. I don’t
    like that, though. I think it’s uninspired and boring.

    I used to fiddle with making fighting game AI. Tried to make it challenging without using cheat methods like fighting games often use (AI exclusive high defense, high attack). I remember hearing that some fighting games had AI that mimicked pro player behavior. I liked trying to make AI behave like a real person. Have switches for when the AI decides to play defensive or offensive. Also had this “dynamic” difficulty thing where the AI turns itself on and off to make itself easier to beat, like how a non-skilled player makes mistakes.

    Can’t remember the last time I saw good AI in a game. I feel like people nowadays run away from making AI, because bad AI “breaks immersion” and immersion is so important for modern game story telling and all that shit. They often avoid anything that might break immersion.

    Even when they don’t run away from making AI, it tends to be really shit. Like the AI in Wildlands. They don’t want to deal with shit like pathing issues, so the AI teleports. Or the AI does stupid things like block your way so you can’t exit houses and stuff, until a modder makes a simple fix to have them move. It’s like companies don’t give a shit, and AI is a very low priority for them. Probably because they expect everyone to just go play multiplayer. Or they are liars, like how Bethesda kept hyping up Oblivion’s AI.

    Oh yeah, I liked Yorda’s AI in ICO. People bitch about it, but I never
    had a problem. I like that she will look around and then try to tell you
    how to solve problems by calling and directing you.

    PSO2 allows you to make a bot version of your character for random
    people to use. The neat thing is you can customize which attacks/support
    buffs it uses, what it says in certain situations, and how it behaves,
    to some degree. Would be nice if we had more stuff like that in games.

    Edit: Elaborating further on PSO2’s bots, for anyone who is curious. You can set traits that make them target specific races/sizes of enemies, or stay close to the player. They tend to heal you when your HP is less than half, and use cleansing items/skills when you’re debuffed.

    Shortcomings include bots not being able to use a bunch of class skills, consumables, and relying on random chance for how often they use anything. Melee and ranged classes tend to spam regular attacks too often. Caster classes will only use magic (if they’re equipped), but there’s a hidden cooldown timer between each cast.

    At one point, there was a thing where the bots would spam the meteor spell like crazy, so that if you had 3 bots following you, the screen would be a constant armageddon of raining meteors such that you couldn’t see anything, and all enemies went splat immediately. Sadly, they patched it out.

    You can see a little of it here, about 20 seconds in:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL6ijReeaYk

    That was back before the graphics upgrade. Effects still looked nice, though.

    • durka durka

      Zombies arent perfect they are lazy and easy.

      • Disqusted

        They’re perfectly easy if you’re a lazy dev.

    • Disqusted

      I thought of something else to talk about. AI in Dark Souls type games is sorta interesting. I think their attacks and abilities are mostly designed to counter the player’s abilities and herd them in a specific fashion, like solving a puzzle.

      I think it’s generally difficult for players to find an ability that breaks good Dark Souls AI. I think it was Dark Souls 2 that dropped the ball because you could cakewalk the game by long-ranging a ton of enemies, but you can’t get away with that as much in the other games.

      A friend tells me he thinks it’s better for AI enemies to have the same fundamental strengths and weaknesses as a player, because it allows players to comprehend them better without having to learn the enemy’s “special rules”.

      I guess he’s talking about how when an enemy whiffs an attack, you know they’re open, like a player would be. But if the enemy AI has bad design, they’ll be invulnerable after whiffing, or immune to stun, or something. That just makes the player think “WTF, that’s bullshit” and get frustrated.

      Of course, I’m not saying it has to be a fair fight, but at least have some standards or prior examples to introduce players to new rules, so as to not surprise/mislead players. You don’t need to do that if the enemies operate under the same rules as the player, because players will probably assume as much.

      On the topic of enemy design and standards, it reminds me of how PSO2 has some really badly designed bosses, because the PSO2 design team keeps breaking their own rules and standards almost everytime they add new content. They like to lead the player to expect something, and then insert exceptions everywhere. All that does is confuse the player.

      An example is how one of the major raid bosses suddenly requires a different attack order strategy at the highest difficulty level. It’s already been several years, but many people still don’t realize they’re supposed to change strategy. But these are more about bad design issues than AI, I think.

  • Bitterbear

    Hey, get a copy of Tacoma and review it.

  • Hawk Hopper

    I doubt that even with Spielberg directing it that Ready Player One will be the first video game movie to break through in the same way comic book movies did.


    America is so divided that this might actually happen. I’ve read theories about China funding South American guerrillas to fight/distract the US.

    https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/896807600020434944


    Some interesting games talked about here, but I think Red Dead Redemption 2 has been delayed until 2018 (so 2032 by Rockstar time).
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3sAVvIutR8

    • America is so divided that this might actually happen. I’ve read theories about China funding South American guerrillas to fight/distract the US.

      That fake Assange account is just getting people riled. Economically it wouldn’t make sense for China to destabilize one of their biggest export sources. Also, unlike Africa, America isn’t as rich in natural resources to destabilize it and take it over for the oil, diamonds, gold, etc., especially when you can just pay off a few rebels with some fancy German weapons in Sierra Leone and distract everybody just long enough to clean-up with some big ‘ole diamonds.

      Globalists destabilizing America makes more sense. I just don’t see China being a part of that; they’re too nationalist to want to sellout their imperial-style governing to share the world and taint their culture with Islamists and Western capitalists.

      • RichardGristle

        China’s economy would last all of 3 days without the likes of Walmart and Home Depot importing their shit.

        You’re right, globalists destabilizing America (more like the West in general) makes sense for a multitude of reasons. They can swoop in and “fix it” and say “See, we solved all your problems. Join us!” and/or just use it as a way to impose their military and laws on whoever they want.

        If the left wasn’t so scared of people fracking and drilling for oil on U.S. soil then we could be independent in that regard, but only the likes of Jerry Brown and Obama’s employment numbers are allowed to benefit from fracking, apparently.

      • Hawk Hopper

        The fake Assange account that Wikileaks retweets and has over 300k followers?

        If the Chinese were to destabilize America, I think they’re patient enough to wait the 10-20 years for everything to get back to normal. Taking that small of an economic hit to become the top economy and power in the world isn’t much of a gamble. One of the biggest winners of globalist attacks against America have been the Chinese, so I wouldn’t assume that the Chinese are against Globalists that have helped them immensely.

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/31d374581dd2c2f89bbfb283d5b5c8e4d2a5908758e6bc4a969fa2bacc621720.png

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c7be8f8b97ae3f9cea42a744a3790ae2d97f34859fb05a9704420e04ecb9846c.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7a98ec39480fd6c58891119afdb8570fb020015f2455d6ecf8b4b55f603e5c5f.png

        • If the Chinese were to destabilize America, I think they’re patient enough to wait the 10-20 years for everything to get back to normal.

          Whoa, what? That makes no sense. If America gets destabilized it’ll end up like all those other third-world sh!tholes. There is no 10 through 20 years to “get back to normal”. If the country becomes completely destabilized, it would take at least 50 years and several level-headed administrations in order to balance things out.

          Once the country is destabilized dollar values drop, jobs go kaput, imports stop, exports dwindle, and the local economy collapses. We’re in a different era here. It’s not like during the great depression where the collapse happened, then WW2 kicked up and we had local manufacturing and production to pull the country out of the rut. There is no fallback or contingency if America is disrupted this time around because all of our notable manufacturing and goods comes from overseas.

          Within the half century of complete economic destitution, how does China benefit when one of their biggest buyers is out of commission?

          Taking that small of an economic hit to become the top economy and power in the world isn’t much of a gamble.

          That’s the most shortsighted plan for destabilization ever. China is already second largest when it comes to GDP just behind America:
          http://disq.us/url?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatisticstimes.com%2Feconomy%2Fcountries-by-projected-gdp.php%3AVostSyNK0V-V7xNzB07Y_LSXe_4&cuid=4216909

          They’re projected to surpass America by 2022, literally just five years from now. What would be the point in destabilizing a country you’re about to surpass anyway and are currently making big bank on at the moment? It’s like shooting yourself in the knee because your foot fell asleep.

          • Hawk Hopper

            Within the half century of complete economic destitution, how does China benefit when one of their biggest buyers is out of commission?

            War is a racket, there is always a ton of money to be made from war.

            Having your biggest rival fall into destruction is always great for you. Even if it is my estimate of 10-20 years, or your 50 years, that’s a lot of time to consolidate power and gain markets. Recently, Trump sold the Saudis nearly $600 billion worth of weapons, if another American civil war broke out, the US probably couldn’t make deals like that any more (they’d need the bombs for their own citizens), but the Chinese could. Also, the American government would be looking for more ways of monitoring and tracking their people, and despite what Google wants, the Chinese are still the best at doing this and will sell their surveillance products and training to the Americans. And if the Chinese were to start doing something like this, they’ve already planned for how they’ll continue making money.

            And on the topic of money, the Chinese will be rolling in all that fiat stuff, especially if there is a war in the US.

            I doubt the Chinese or globalist like an even somewhat indivisible USA, it’s becoming a threat to their power, so why not crush it before Americans start getting really smart and outright avoiding their schemes?

            And if America became a hellhole, would the globalists and the Chinese really care? They’ve done it to other countries before. Humans, even before the globalists, have turned the world into a meat grinder hundreds of times and have killed hundreds of millions. It didn’t matter if it made any sense or not, the blood flowed for one reason or another. But most of this has happened outside of the USA, and I’m not so sure we are going to be lucky to avoid it any longer.

            Also, with the Assange account, do you think it’s fake or not?

          • War is a racket, there is always a ton of money to be made from war.

            Sure, but the people who profit from it do so from the comfort and safety of not being in the country where that war is taking place.

            Having your biggest rival fall into destruction is always great for you.

            Except in this case, America isn’t so much China’s rival as it is China’s b*tch.

            https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-debt-to-china-how-much-does-it-own-3306355

            The article makes the perfect point about the yuan needing to stay low so that they can continue to monopolize exports. If the U.S., erupts into civil war the U.S., dollar will drop rapidly and the yuan will skyrocket because China will then become the top superpower in the world. Export prices skyrocket and China loses its edge on manipulating its own people and growing rapidly on a cheap yuan.

            China is currently playing 4D chess to use this to their advantage to also capitalize on the not sh!thole parts of Africa to establish enterprise and infrastructure within Africa thanks to the yuan being as cheap as it is:
            http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/05/kenya-inaugurates-chinese-funded-railway-170531113643612.html

            They can continue to rapidly expand if they just keep things the way they are. Once the U.S., collapses they lose that advantage; their economy explodes; yuan price goes up; imports become cheaper for Chinese but exports look less lucrative for developing and emerging countries doing business with China, and the burgeoning infrastructure they’re establishing in Africa falls in.

            I mean, literally there’s just zero benefit to China from America falling within the next decade because there’s just too much overhead working against China’s current plans for expansion.

            However, at the current rate, it would take another few years with things becoming so politically hostile in America that civil war breaks out. China’s plans to expand and control Africa’s infrastructure would be put at risk. China would lose money from America on exports. There’s just zero short or long-term benefit for China for that to happen right now.

            If this were the 1980s, then yeah sure… I would be in complete agreement.

            Also, the American government would be looking for more ways of monitoring and tracking their people, and despite what Google wants, the Chinese are still the best at doing this and will sell their surveillance products and training to the Americans

            Nah… Google is still the best at tracking. The tech is already here Stateside, it’s just a matter of implementing it. I mean, China has no answer to thwarting the snooping of Google Maps, which is just embarrassing for them:

            http://bgr.com/2017/01/10/pokemon-go-china-ban/

            I doubt the Chinese or globalist like an even somewhat indivisible USA, it’s becoming a threat to their power, so why not crush it before Americans start getting really smart and outright avoiding their schemes?

            If this were the 1990s sure, at that point America was a lot more unified. But after 2001 and the 9/11 event things have been on a steady decline in terms of stability, especially with the classism and racism that have been on a steady incline since the 2008 recession.

            Also, with the Assange account, do you think it’s fake or not?

            Absolutely fake. It doesn’t even have a real blue checkmark.

          • Hawk Hopper

            The American economy desperately needed business from the Japanese and Nazis during the Great Depression, but we still went to war. Even from the perspective of Germany, who’s Reichmarks were weak compared to the dollar, still declared war on America. Japan would have been way better off not going to war with America, even after the US nationalized all their assets. We were in a more rough spot than the Chinese are now, but we still destabilized (to put it lightly) both Germany and Japan.

            And our economy got fucking great. A fucked up Europe, after basically getting into 2 civil wars over the course of several decades, only befitted us.

            Fast forward to now, and imagine the Chinese really want to get a leg up on America. Having the US descend into civil war can really do it. Once the dust has settled, America will need to rebuild and the Chinese will be there to foot the bill and collect the interest (like America did after WWI and WWII). Being a rich and powerful country relies on spending big, and getting into lots of debt. America has been losing manufacturing power for a long time, but are still number 1 (according to Keynesians) because our government spends so much damn money. The Chinese can be big spenders.

            And there spending in Africa will somehow be different than them spending on a US civil war? Africa is been through how many wars in the past 20 years? (nearly 20, about 10 ongoing, leaving out War on Terror stuff) The Congo has had a series of civil wars in the past 3 decades. The whole damn Continent is basically destabilized, and that’s how the Chinese (and US) like it. If the US goes the way of Africa, the Chinese have enough experience in shithole Africa to benefit from it.

            We can argue about what the dastardly Chinese are up to, but you’re wrong about the Assange account that made that tweet: A) Twitter uses the verification mark as a good boy treat and Assange is in detention for rattling the DNC. B) And the theory that it’s fake is also hindered by the fact that Wikileaks retweets it all the time. C) Also, the verified Wikileaks account links to that Assange account in their bio.

            D) http://archive.is/8nlGB

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/80d26e68f772be4b0786826ebd8394da3de7933b04d38ff8944b5733831fcf09.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/febeb9b4e5b51ed89b84e566fbdbaa9fa22617ab117527a0c970a0911a543698.png

          • descent3031

            I think you both underestimate the U.S.
            They still have the most powerful military in the world.
            They still have a lot of oil they’re sitting on. This can be tapped when the people have the will. I don’t think we’re far off that.

            One of the biggest tools of globalist control and deceit is coming unravelled. The global warming scam is going to run dry in the near future (I’ve been involved in this since I left school 16 years ago and I’m certain it’s coming to an end in the next few years), and once it does, I think we’re going to see a proper backlash against environmental fuckery. If America unshackles itself from concerns over the environmental consequences of carbon and nuclear based energy then it will start gaining ground very quickly.

            The American market is bouncing because of the tiny promise of cutting a little bit of tape and not introducing more. If America moves toward cheaper energy and less regulation, and stops pissing money away on climate change at a staggering rate (Something the Chinese don’t spend a dime on), then it will be competitive.

            I’m not super sure how it’s all going to pan out, but writing America off is foolish. They’re still the leaders of the world in the most relevant fields, and I feel that America (and Britain) are pulling in the right direction to avert cultural suicide. It still may happen, but I don’t think anyone but America can kill off America.

          • And our economy got fucking great. A fucked up Europe, after basically getting into 2 civil wars over the course of several decades, only befitted us.

            Yeah of course, but again that’s because of local industry boomed in America.

            If our economy collapses tech imports goes down the drain, outsourcing dies because importing shrinks.

            Government subsidies on farming might finally be lifted because at that point it would boil down to survival, and America could definitely survive on its homegrown farming trade. But telecommunications would go bust, and the housing market would fare worse than it did during the last recession, affecting and halting commerce across the nation.

            What exactly would cause America to bounce back? We outsourced and sold out a lot of the industry markets that were originally used to help rebound America during WW2.

            Being a rich and powerful country relies on spending big, and getting into lots of debt.

            Except China is doing this already and is still rapidly growing without being in the same kind of debt as the U.S.

            And there spending in Africa will somehow be different than them spending on a US civil war?

            Yeah, because their big spending in Africa is on long-term infrastructure: travel, telecommunications, quality of life services, etc. China will practically run the African countries where they establish infrastructure.

            The whole damn Continent is basically destabilized, and that’s how the Chinese (and US) like it. If the US goes the way of Africa, the Chinese have enough experience in shithole Africa to benefit from it.

            Except there is no benefit. Africa being destabilized helps A TON of other countries, including China and the U.S. The Dutch monopolize the farming trade, the Russians operate many of the blood diamond mining operations, the Chinese are looking to control developing infrastructure, a bunch of countries pilfer the oil resources, etc., etc.

            There’s no benefit to other countries to fully stabilize Africa because it’s still resource rich, and so long as it’s destabilized, others can come in, steal and get away with it, just like when America destabilized Iraq and went in and sucked up all of that oil.

            https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jan/23/usa.oil

            Destabilization is a long game, but it always serves a purpose. For China, what do they gain exactly that they don’t already have or won’t already have within the next five years? They’re already going to be number one in a few years if they keep moving at their current economic trajectory.

            America’s infrastructure is already established. America’s natural resources aren’t worth pilfering, and there’s nothing in the long game that makes it beneficial to a superpower like China.

            Now North Korea… I could definitely see North Korea paying billions to train and arm Nationalists in America to destabilize the country. I could also easily see them using a civil war as an opportunity to blitz America’s military.

            The only reason China would do that is an attempt to acculturate America and turn it into an imperial annexation.

            We can argue about what the dastardly Chinese are up to, but you’re wrong about the Assange account that made that tweet

            The account has made some questionable tweets in the past, and it just didn’t seem to be under the control of Assange. If it is the real Assange then he’s off his game, and needs to back up the conspiracy talk with some actual links, facts or some sort of exchange to reinforce his point.

          • Hawk Hopper

            Now North Korea… I could definitely see North Korea paying billions to train and arm Nationalists in America to destabilize the country. I could also easily see them using a civil war as an opportunity to blitz America’s military.

            Did you write the Red Dawn remake?

            The account has made some questionable tweets in the past, and it just didn’t seem to be under the control of Assange. If it is the real Assange then he’s off his game, and needs to back up the conspiracy talk with some actual links, facts or some sort of exchange to reinforce his point.

            How is speculating about how shitty both the Chinese and white supremacists are somehow make Assange “off his game”?

            He has reason to believe that the Chinese could arm chubby goose steppers because the Chinese have funded other shitheads:

            The Chinese funding in the Americas goes back to the 60s, where they funded Cuba and meddled in Venzuela, Ecudador, Peru… ( https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/esau-22.pdf )

            Flashforward to very recently and Chinese have funded the Myanmar rebels
            http://archive.is/DTw6v

            Chinese weapons are finding their way into the hands of African warlords (but they’ll never arm white boys in America)
            https://archive.is/apHDY

            The Chinese have been blamed for helping with the genocide in Darfur (but will absolutely, under no circumstances help those using WhiteGenocide as a hashtag)
            https://archive.is/og1Rl

            Yeah, because their big spending in Africa is on long-term infrastructure: travel, telecommunications, quality of life services, etc. China will practically run the African countries where they establish infrastructure.

            Seeing how many people think China is mostly focused on Africa really benefits the Chinese if they want to expand outwards, say into the United States while Americans are distracted by a civil war happening on their doorstep.

            Except China is doing this already and is still rapidly growing without being in the same kind of debt as the U.S.

            But they have nearly $30 trillion in overall debt, they might even start bailing out banks and corporations. http://archive.is/Zfu8y

            For China, what do they gain exactly that they don’t already have or won’t already have within the next five years?

            They want control over the south Chinese sea.
            They want America nukes not to be aimed at them.
            They want other things, but these are huge and won’t happen unless the US is destabilized.

            But to sum all this up:

            I’m always interested in people speculating about what’s going to happen. If Assange is pondering what would happen if the Chinese started arming American white supremacists, I think that’s fascinating. But many people just keep believing that something like that just couldn’t happen here.

            I’m thinking it’s likely. What makes you think violent groups in the US aren’t already funded and armed by foreigners? BlackLivesMatter is at least partially funded by Soros ( https://archive.is/MFLe6 ), the Mexican Cartel and other South American gangs with ties to politicians in South America are operating on American streets, Russian communist did make headway into the US before the wall fell, immigrants into the US have conducted terrorist attacks on American soil, and the list goes on and on.

            Oh, but I’m supposed to think it’s absurd that the Chinese would somehow think the US is entirely impenetrable and won’t take advantage of an opportunity when they know one exists.

          • How is speculating about how shitty both the Chinese and white supremacists are somehow make Assange “off his game”?

            Because it comes completely out of left field. I expect that sort of thing from a disinformation agent. Assange is usually fact-heavy, link-heavy, and relies on some sort of sourcing. That comment is a “trust me, guyz… it’s true!” conjecture.

            There’s literally no basis for the claim, unless he’s talking about some Chinese splinter cell or deep state.

            As for your examples… they tie almost perfectly into what I mentioned before: if this were the 1980’s I would wholeheartedly agree about China wanting to invade the U.S., as the long game, because it was a different time back then.
            And this here…

            The Chinese funding in the Americas goes back to the 60s, where they funded Cuba and meddled in Venzuela, Ecudador, Peru…

            That would have helped tremendously. But if that were still the case then China would have backed North Korea on their threats because if they wanted the U.S., an easy way to do it is to bait them into a war with North Korea, let the Soros civil war destabilization take place, and then invade. It would be one of the easiest invasions of a superpower ever.

            Instead, China told North Korea to go suck an egg and told Trump to cool his jets:
            http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-40909468

            That’s antipodes to a country wanting to invade the U.S.

            Chinese weapons are finding their way into the hands of African warlords (but they’ll never arm white boys in America)

            Think about the examples you’re using and what I mentioned about China now moving into Africa after it’s been completely destabilized to control some of the country’s infrastructure (e.g., railroads, highways, telecoms, etc.,)?

            They helped supply warlords with the means to destabilize in order to take control of the country later, which is what they’re doing now.

            But they have nearly $30 trillion in overall debt, they might even start bailing out banks and corporations.

            LOL… but the article you link to Bloomberg literally supports my point, especially this part here….

            Growth could fall below 3 percent if the country experiences a financial crisis. The impact would ripple across the global economy, which last year got about a third of its expansion from China, according to Nomura Holdings Inc.

            You know what would also cause a financial crisis to China? If their biggest exporter collapsed as well, crippling a large part of their annual income. Also they don’t have to worry about collapse since in that very same article they mention that they have enough slush to cover the $29 trillion. It’s more of a forewarning about their spending than them being in an actual crisis state like the U.S.

            They want control over the south Chinese sea.

            I agree.

            They want America nukes not to be aimed at them.

            This hasn’t been a problem since the cold war, and America and other superpowers have been dismantling the nukes:

            http://www.npr.org/2011/10/29/141801929/u-s-dismantles-the-biggest-of-its-cold-war-nukes

            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7568686/US-and-Russia-agree-to-destroy-thousands-of-nuclear-weapons.html

            They want other things, but these are huge and won’t happen unless the US is destabilized.

            This is what I’m most interested in: what could they possibly want from the U.S., so badly that they would piss away all of their current economic might, risk collapse from assets turning into liabilities, and potentially putting their expansion into the Africas on hold due to possible government financial intervention?

            I literally just can’t see how any of that helps China in the long run when they have so much to gain right now, and so much to lose on the U.S., becoming destabilized.

            BlackLivesMatter is at least partially funded by Soros ( https://archive.is/MFLe6 ), the Mexican Cartel and other South American gangs with ties to politicians in South America are operating on American streets,

            And I agree that all of those make sense as to why they’re trying to destabilize. It ties into gains; there’s a lot for the cartels to gain getting more drugs into the U.S. There’s a lot for Soros to gain destabilizing the country in order to rebuild it under a globalist brand. There would have been a lot to gain for Russia if they could have subverted the U.S., during the cold war and attach it to the Soviet arm. But for China? I just don’t see any pragmatic outcomes that benefit them more than where they are right now.

          • Hawk Hopper

            There’s literally no basis for the claim, unless he’s talking about some Chinese splinter cell or deep state.

            Except for the fact that the Chinese do arm dangerous groups around the world, just as the CIA does, but lets keep acting like something like that happening here is entirely impossible.

            they tie almost perfectly into what I mentioned before: if this were the 1980’s I would wholeheartedly agree about China wanting to invade the U.S., as the long game, because it was a different time back then.

            Neo-Nazi groups weren’t as widespread as they are now. In the 80s, these groups were heavily infiltrated by the FBI and other groups, but with increased amounts of Streisand Effect given to these groups by censorious online entities have only increased. Monitoring of these groups have increased, but the FBI is going to play the “we knew they would cause trouble” but failed to do anything reports will increase like are now with Charlottesville: http://archive.is/mdQAJ

            Instead, China told North Korea to go suck an egg and told Trump to cool his jets:

            Because why would the Chinese want American nukes landing so close to their borders? Of course they told the little fat man to settle the fuck down.

            They helped supply warlords with the means to destabilize in order to take control of the country later, which is what they’re doing now.

            I don’t think you see my point that things like this could happen in the United States. The Chinese and their fellow globalist chums would love a fractured and subservient US.

            LOL… but the article you link to Bloomberg literally supports my point, especially this part here….

            Your point was that China doesn’t have the same sort of debt the US has (“Except China is doing this already and is still rapidly growing without being in the same kind of debt as the U.S.”), which US overall debt is almost $20 trillion as compared to Chinese debt of nearly $30 trillion. They sure love debt as a means to power and fast growth, but please explain how having $30 trillion in overal debt is the same as having $20 trillion in debt.

            Do the Chinese have some ancient secret that makes their enormous debt somehow less than everyone else’s debt? Maybe there is a Confucius saying that about how tens of trillions of debt for the Chinese isn’t as significant as tens of trillions of debt to those without tao.

            You know what would also cause a financial crisis to China? If their biggest exporter collapsed as well, crippling a large part of their annual income. Also they don’t have to worry about collapse since in that very same article they mention that they have enough slush to cover the $29 trillion. It’s more of a forewarning about their spending than them being in an actual crisis state like the U.S.

            “The Chinese couldn’t have their largest exporter face hardships”
            “The Chinese have enough to just wipe away all their debt”

            You’re thinking the Chinese wouldn’t be as harmed by unrest in the US as you’re letting on. Either they’ll face devastating economic consequences, or they’ll laugh off the whole thing the same way they are the $30 trillion debt. It’s one or the other.

            This hasn’t been a problem since the cold war, and America and other superpowers have been dismantling of nukes

            Even with the US and Russia dismantling nukes, the Chinese are just going to nod their heads approvingly like trained seals? As of right now, the US still has 6,800 nukes in total (with 2,800 waiting to be dismantled). But that makes it fine by the Chinese for a portion of them to still be aimed at China? How the fuck does that work? Especially with their 270 nukes. http://archive.is/qouDv

            Those nukes are also hindering their lust for the South China Sea. They can’t just take it over and suffer a full retaliation.

            I literally just can’t see how any of that helps China in the long run when they have so much to gain right now, and so much to lose on the U.S., becoming destabilized.

            They would have much more freedom to do as they want in the world. Even if they are hurt economically for a long time, China has been around for an even longer time and has withstood a lot of shit. It would just be another hard period for them only to get the big win in the end.

          • Except for the fact that the Chinese do arm dangerous groups around the world, just as the CIA does, but lets keep acting like something like that happening here is entirely impossible.

            That’s the equivalent of saying “These Hispanic guys robbed a car dealership in south central, therefore they could be planning to steal cars from Hollywood mansions”.

            It’s a leap in logic.

            Every major superpower is funding some shady group in a proxy war taking place around the world. However, a lot of times it’s to the country’s benefit. CIA funding and destabilizing the middle east made it easy to go in and steal the oil right out from under their noses. It makes sense.

            China funding white nationalists in America to create destabilization does what for the long game? Take over the farming subsidies? They’re already buying up American farming corps:
            http://www.takepart.com/article/2016/02/22/china-syngenta-smithfield

            And they’re already exporting many of their goods to the U.S.
            https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/11/business/us-china-trade-deals.html

            It’s like a guy who is already winning a race who decides to pull out a gun and risk disqualification because he wants to shoot the guy in second place who is already getting tired, slowing down and 10 paces behind.

            Monitoring of these groups have increased, but the FBI is going to play the “we knew they would cause trouble” but failed to do anything reports will increase like are now with Charlottesville:

            I don’t dispute that at all. I definitely believe homegrown militia in the U.S., are being funded, I just don’t think it’s by the Chinese.

            I don’t think you see my point that things like this could happen in the United States. The Chinese and their fellow globalist chums would love a fractured and subservient US.

            I know the globalists would, but the Chinese are gaining so much now as it is. Fracturing the whole thing for nothing in the short term, and no guarantees in the long term is just one of the most counterproductive things I’ve ever heard, especially for where China is currently positioned on the global market.

            They sure love debt as a means to power and fast growth, but please explain how having $30 trillion in overal debt is the same as having $20 trillion in debt.

            They’ve got $24 trillion in reserves, and a lot of their debt is from foreign expansion with a high yield of ROI over the next couple of decades. They’re spending big but in areas that could actually promise even bigger returns , such as controlling Africa’s cross-continental transportation hubs, or America’s farming industry. Yes, they’re spending big, but they’re spending big on infrastructure that have huge returns.

            Even with their debt ceiling as high as it is, the Chinese are extremely prolific. Despite the spending they’re third — just behind Singapore and Suriname — when it comes to reserves after accounting for consumption + income, with a 0.1% default.

            https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2260rank.html

            Where does the U.S., rank? …105th.

            Do the Chinese have some ancient secret that makes their enormous debt somehow less than everyone else’s debt?

            Nope. They’re just investing in areas that have high ROI. America isn’t. America is borrowing and spending while doing very little to bolster, increase, or expand infrastructure for long term gains with low debt. This is evident with the dwindling middle-class — the biggest consumer base in the country — who are about to be phased out without any job replacement measures put into place.

            Either they’ll face devastating economic consequences, or they’ll laugh off the whole thing the same way they are the $30 trillion debt. It’s one or the other.

            Those two are mutually exclusive. Another American civil war is inevitable. There isn’t much China can do to stop that. They would be hurt if America completely collapses and it would severely damage them in the short and long term. However, China has no reason to want America to go into a civil war because America being right where it is benefits them the most. They can laugh off the debt so long as America is not destabilized.

            Again, if America avoids civil war for the next five years, China can wipe out a lot of their own debt, continue to profit and expand, and avoid any long term penalties.

            If America does go to war with itself within the next five years, China loses a lot. The yuan explodes because their top exporter buying stuff for cheap goes kaput. Paying off the debt is no longer secure; the debt would likely expand due to higher yuan; and loan coverage from banks would no longer be guaranteed.

            In about a decade or two China may not be as reliant on America, and them plotting against the U.S., would make a lot of sense. But right now they just have way more to lose than to gain.

            EDIT: Just for reference, China purposefully keeps the yuan devalued for the express purpose of capitalizing on cheap but plentiful exports. It’s a fine and crafty balancing act: https://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/07/chinese-yuan-heres-whats-happening-to-the-currency.html

          • Hawk Hopper

            That’s the equivalent of saying “These Hispanic guys robbed a car dealership in south central, therefore they could be planning to steal cars from Hollywood mansions”.
            It’s a leap in logic.

            It’s not a leap in logic to say that the Chinese, who fund violent groups, could also fund violent groups in the US. If the CIA also funded those same groups operating in the US, it wouldn’t be a surprise. Groups using the same MO all the world and expanding what they’re already doing is the name of the game.

            I definitely believe homegrown militia in the U.S., are being funded, I just don’t think it’s by the Chinese.

            Did you forget this is all speculative? It’s a question of if they would do it, not if they are doing it right now.

            Chinese are gaining so much now as it is. Fracturing the whole thing for nothing in the short term, and no guarantees in the long term is just one of the most counterproductive things I’ve ever heard,

            The globalist wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been counterproductive for over a decade, but yet they continue. It’s not even about if the Chinese would benefit, it would be about the globalists benefiting.

            They’re spending big but in areas that could actually promise even bigger returns , such as controlling Africa’s cross-continental transportation hubs, or America’s farming industry. Yes, they’re spending big, but they’re spending big on infrastructure that have huge returns.

            The whole China is “investing in Africa’s infrastructure” isn’t really true. They’re paying a ton of money into the pocket of corrupt African institutions and politicians, but Chinese money isn’t paying for improvement to Africa. The Chinese would like you to believe that they are, but it mostly isn’t true.

            Last year, China established a new $60 billion fund to finance infrastructure projects in Africa, mostly with Chinese lending. The easy money is alluring, and the projects can be essential. But most of the loans stipulate that a Chinese state-owned company must take the lead, ensuring that the work, skills and profits are kept largely in the Chinese family. Countries like Namibia are left holding the debt.

            http://archive.is/KtjdC

            and

            Of the total 60 billion dollars, 5 billion is offered as aid gratis and interest-free loans, 35 billion of concessional loans and export credits, with increased preference; 5 billion of investmentaugmentation into the China-Africa Development Fund and Special Loans for Development of Small and Medium Enterprises in Africa, respectively, and the initial 10 billion for foundation of the China-Africa Capacity Cooperation Fund.

            http://www.focac.org/eng/zfgx/t1331126.htm
            http://www.chinaafricarealstory.com

            and

            Researchers at the Japan International Cooperation Agency Research Institute made a more rigorous effort to estimate the volume of Chinese development assistance. Unlike the Rand researchers, they figured that aid should include only the types of things that China, Japan, and other donor countries classify as official development assistance — for example, grants and subsidized loans. Their estimate for Chinese aid in 2011 was a modest $4.5 billion.

            http://archive.is/oBYtb

            So China is really just lining pockets, for themselves and corrupt politicians. Africa has been a shithole for a long time, a cavern to toss money and aid, only to get some resources and accusations of being colonialist.

            About the gross national savings. What it is, lets refer back to your CIA source: “Gross national saving is derived by deducting final consumption expenditure from Gross national disposable income, and consists of personal saving, plus business saving , plus government saving, but excludes foreign saving. ”

            Chinese also save far more than others, with an average household savings rate of 38 percent in 2010, compared with just 3.9 percent for Americans and 2.8 percent for Japanese, according to figures compiled by Bloomberg Businessweek magazine, using statistics from the World Bank and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, along with other data.

            And while younger Chinese have begun to buy more, save less and take advantage of credit more often than their parents, the old habits appear to be eroding slowly and may change only with a new generation.

            http://archive.is/im1Jw

            so of the $24 trillion the Chinese have saved, about $9.12 trillion is in the pockets of the average Chinese person. I wouldn’t put it past the communist Chinese to outright rob every single penny (one way is by artificially lowering interest rates or inflating the yuan even more) from their people to pay their debts, but there would be hell to pay in their own homeland. If that happened, I guess you’d be right saying you couldn’t think of a reason the Chinese wouldn’t fuck with the US, because they’d have a world of their own problems to deal with. They’d also be fucked if they took the savings from all their new shiny businesses.

            They’re just investing in areas that have high ROI. America isn’t. America is borrowing and spending while doing very little to bolster, increase, or expand infrastructure for long term gains with low debt.

            As a Chinese PhD researching explained to me that the boom in Chinese infrastructure happened because they had decades of not doing anything with it, and then had the money to do it, so they pumped a bunch of money into it. The reason this didn’t also happen in the US is because we had most of our infrastructure already built, even if it’s shit.

            If America does go to war with itself within the next five years, China loses a lot. The yuan explodes because their top exporter buying stuff for cheap goes kaput. Paying off the debt is no longer secure; the debt would likely expand due to higher yuan; and loan coverage from banks would no longer be guaranteed.

            This might be the major point where we’re disagreeing. You think the Chinese are extremely worried about their exporting cheap shit to the US to such a degree that it turned them into a bunch of pussies. I’m saying that even if their exports got fucked up, they’d endure it like they’ve endured a lot of other stuff, and would see it as a wise power investment.

        • durka durka

          My money on china is on moving into europe for trading and then to middle east for natural resources.

          • I agree. Makes the most sense.

        • Disqusted

          I don’t trust any numbers on social media. Lots of bots, and it’s already been proven many times that YouTube and Reddit manipulate numbers of views/subscriptions/likes/dislikes/comments like crazy.

          • Hawk Hopper

            I guess you didn’t see where I explained how the verified Wikileaks account states that this is Assange’s account:

            but you’re wrong about the Assange account that made that tweet: A) Twitter uses the verification mark as a good boy treat and Assange is in detention for rattling the DNC. B) And the theory that it’s fake is also hindered by the fact that Wikileaks retweets it all the time. C) Also, the verified Wikileaks account links to that Assange account in their bio.

            D) http://archive.is/8nlGB

          • Disqusted

            I already know that the Wikileaks retweeting that Assange means it’s the real Assange.

            I just wanted to point out/remind everyone that the numbers alone aren’t reliable in any situation.

            I said this in another comment that I don’t think anyone saw, one of the blatant bullshit things on YouTube is, for example, when a video has 100,000 views, and maybe 90,000 dislikes, the like/dislike ratio bar will be at 50/50 or some shit. Their whole site is completely broken, probably intentionally.

          • Hawk Hopper

            I just wanted to point out/remind everyone that the numbers alone aren’t reliable in any situation.

            Twitter is willing to give some nobody jackass with 2k followers a blue check, but Assange can’t get anything for his quality shitposts.

      • durka durka

        Wait that acount is fake? Lol fooled me.

        • Well Hawk pointed to some links that state that it’s real, but until Assange properly verifies himself on it I’ll reserve judgment.

          • Disqusted

            I heard he tried and Twitter is denying him. I saw people complaining that because of that they can’t tell which Assange is the real one.

            All according to Twitter’s keikaku. I hear they have a habit of verifying far left extremists so they get special priority and dominate top comments.

            I think I tried to verify myself several times over the years and it kept saying it doesn’t send SMS to my location. Never had that problem with any other service in the world. Jack can f**k right off.

            Dunno what to think about China (or Russia) destabilizing the U.S. when Soros and the U.S. itself are doing a stellar job of doing it without China’s help. And as you said, it just doesn’t seem very beneficial to China, as far as I can see.

          • I heard he tried and Twitter is denying him. I saw people complaining that because of that they can’t tell which Assange is the real one.

            Yeah there are a couple of fake Assange accounts with a lot of followers. I became a bit suspicious after one of the accounts was making some fairly partisan comments in favor of the right, which seemed out of place for Assange, who usually tries to keep it neutral and relies more on facts and evidence than bias.

          • Disqusted

            I’m sure it’s all part of Sorosites trying to delegitimize everybody by muddying everything up. They’re making it harder to tell who is telling the truth, on purpose.

            I saw a quote from a conservative? guy earlier, saying something like, he thinks Soros is a double agent because he’s delegitimizing the Democrats.

            That’s the thing. People still think it’s a left vs right issue. I don’t think it is. I don’t see it as a “sides” thing. I think Soros is trying to delegitimize EVERYBODY.

            I mean, imagine a society where nobody trusts anybody, nobody knows who to look to for information or guidance. Probably wouldn’t be much of a society anymore. And I think that’s how you can destroy society.

            The saddest thing is seeing all these morons pissing away what trust they worked hard to gain, by virtue signalling and pandering to extremists. Or they were already taken over and brainwashed.

    • durka durka

      Why is Julian Assange so retarded? I remember seeing him in a video with Slavoj Zizek and Yanis Varoufakis in youtube talking about where the world is going and Slavoj Zizek says “dont worry once we are in charge you will be forced to like it”

      Slavoj Zizek is a communist.

      Seems Julian is one of them. I cant believe how these people think there are special anti west interest groups funding neo nazis who are out to get them, when its them fucking up the west all by themselves with their communist bullshit.

  • NotMusiqia

    A common element of enemy AI in 3D spectacle fighter games: off-screen enemies do not attack the player (or generally take actions besides wandering). This turns me off quite a bit. I understand the need for it; these games would be much harder without it, but I still hate it. I wish we had some other technique of dealing with the problem of too many enemies. Whenever I notice it, I instantly loose a lot of my investment and interest in the game.

    • Disqusted

      I noticed that too. In Onechanbara R on Wii (the game that sites like GameSpot completely dismissed and went out of their way to smear just because the protagonist has a bikini as part of her outfit), enemies can attack from off-screen.

      They make a significant sound before doing so. The spiders screech, and you hear a sharp high-pitched pin removal sound before the military zombies throw grenades. You basically need to dodge after you hear those sounds, or you will take big damage.

      You can be hit by offscreen enemies/attacks in PSO2 without any obvious tell, which can be annoying. Just have to pay attention and position yourself and the camera so it doesn’t happen, I think.