
DeepMind and Blizzard to release StarCraft II as an AI research environment - madspindel
https://deepmind.com/blog/deepmind-and-blizzard-release-starcraft-ii-ai-research-environment/
======
theptip
This is pretty interesting.

DeepMind’s last triumph (beating the best human Go players with AlphaGo) is
impressive, but Go is a great fit for neural networks as they stand today;
it’s stateless, so you can fully evaluate your position based on the state of
the board at a given turn.

That’s not a good fit for most real-world problems, where you have to remember
something that happened in the past. E.g. the ‘fog of war’ in a strategy game.

This is a big open problem in AI research right now. I saw a post around the
time of AlphaGo challenging DeepMind to tackle StarCraft next, so it is very
cool that they have gone in this direction.

When Google’s AI can beat a human at StarCraft, it’s time to be very afraid.

~~~
burke
> When Google’s AI can beat a human at StarCraft, it’s time to be very afraid.

I don't actually agree with this. Unlike Go, StarCraft is not only a game of
strategy; "micro" (micro-managed tactics, basically) also plays a big role. An
AI is going to be able to issue a LOT more commands per second than even the
most skilled humans, giving them a natural tactical advantage.

Strategy is more difficult for an AI, but not the only deciding factor in
StarCraft.

~~~
arcticfox
I agree. I think you'd have to limit that machine's APM to somewhere around
the human limit, and make it choose which actions it wants to spend its time
on.

Otherwise the AI is eventually just going to absolutely destroy humans with
micro, which is not remotely interesting. We've known transistors were faster
than fingers for ages.

~~~
lordnacho
> Otherwise the AI is eventually just going to absolutely destroy humans with
> micro, which is not remotely interesting.

If you could issue as many orders as you wanted, what would the optimal
strategy be?

~~~
patmcguire
There's almost certainly a bunch of timing-based micro with animations/game
ticks/etc that a machine would find. For example, if a machine does a sequence
of actions with sub-millisecond precision they can pop a unit into range,
fire, and then pop back out again without being fired upon over and over.

A lot of units would be rendered useless because it's balanced for humans.
That means the units they counter would be a lot stronger. I'm afraid it would
probably just be a race to get the fastest rush.

~~~
halflings
What you're describing is called "kiting", and is already being done by
regular players (not to mention the pros). It is only possible for some
combinations of units, for example Marines with stimpack vs regular zerglings
("slowlings"), or Viking vs Void Ray because one unit needs to be fast enough
to be able to shoot + move out of range before being shot.

Here's the type of micro pro players can do:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrAlhk98WxE±](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrAlhk98WxE±)

They do say that they will limit the number of actions taken by the AI to
focus on building a smart and strategic AI instead of learning gimmicky micro
moves, but if one thing is sure, it's that even the best micro cannot win a
StarCraft game if the macro is not on point, and bad choices are made (good
luck micro-ing siege tanks against a swarm host!)

------
formula1
I suspect this will eventually lead to AI as a service for games. Rather than
build a terrible AI that delays a game by months, approaching a company that
can build a decent AI initially which gets better overtime would probably be
ideal and create better experiences.

Im curious if a startup can be built from this.

~~~
doikor
Is it harder to make an AI that is mediocre at playing the game vs one that is
good? That is the main issue with making good AIs for games now. We want AIs
(if you can call them that) that play kinda like humans but worse then the
player as the player wants to win.

Making an AI for game isn't about making a good AI. It is about making an AI
that loses in a convincing manner. This is especially try for games like
Starcraft (RTS and strategy games in general. For FPS games it really isn't so
important as you can just increase or decrease the accuracy and hp of the
enemies)

~~~
kurthr
I think it's really important to realize is that a game AI isn't really there
to try to win, or maybe even to "convincingly" beat you the same way a human
is. Perhaps you could train an AI to make the game more "fun", but that's
pretty hard to measure and people are so different. It's a really hard
optimization process.

One commonality, it seems, is that players want to get better at the game.
Perhaps, an AI that TEACHES the user to improve their play, and reduce errors
would be an easier problem. So far we mostly do this using heuristics of
gradually increasing difficulty, but it should really depend on what the
player is weakest at... and what the user can improve at fastest! That is
something nicely measurable, which you might use to train an AI.

Then, if/when people play against other human players they are as strong as
they can be... often an FPS goal.

~~~
visarga
> So far we mostly do this using heuristics of gradually increasing
> difficulty, but it should really depend on what the player is weakest at.

That's how MOOCs should function, too.

------
chrishare
Very interesting stuff.

Allowing researchers to build AIs that operate on either game state or visual
data is a great step, IMO. Being able to limit actions-per-minute is also very
wise. The excellent BWAPI library for Starcraft Broodwar that is referenced
([https://github.com/bwapi/bwapi](https://github.com/bwapi/bwapi)) provides
game state - and was presumably used by Facebook to do their research earlier
this year
([http://arxiv.org/abs/1609.02993](http://arxiv.org/abs/1609.02993)). For
mine, the significant new challenges here not present in Go are the partial
observability of the game and the limited time window in which decisions need
to be made. Even at 24 frames per second, the AI would only have 40
milliseconds to decide what to do in response to that frame. This is more
relevant to online learning architectures.

The open questions here are how freely this will be available - and in what
form. Will I need to buy a special version of the game? Clearly there will be
some protection or AI detection - to ensure that competitive human play is not
ruined either by human-level bots, if they can truly be developed, or by sub-
par bots. Starcraft 2 (presumably the latest expansion, Legacy of the Void,
will be used here) does not run on Linux, whereas most GPU-based deep learning
toolkits are, so having a bridge between the game and AI server may be
necessary for some researchers.

Besides being great for AI researchers, this is probably good for Blizzard
too, since it will bring more interest to the Starcraft series.

2017 can't come soon enough.

~~~
endgame
I wonder if this would have ever been built or released if bwapi wasn't a
thing.

~~~
ygra
BWAPI asked in the past, I think, and got pointed to the game's EULA, which
forbids it. It may be a different thing if Google asks. Especially with a
somewhat more remarkable result (AlphaGo) than "just" a bunch of student AI
experiments.

------
rezashirazian
If DeepMind is planning on building an AI that can beat the best human SCII
player, they have their work cut out for them.

I'm not sure how familiar people are with StarCraft II, but at the highest
levels of the game, where player have mastered the mechanics, it's a mind game
fueled by deceit, sophisticated and malleable planning, detecting subtle
patterns (having a good gut feeling on what's going on) and on the pro scene
knowledge of your opponent's style.

~~~
seanwilson
> I'm not sure how familiar people are with StarCraft II, but at the highest
> levels of the game, where player have mastered the mechanics, it's a mind
> game fueled by deceit, sophisticated and malleable planning, detecting
> subtle patterns (having a good gut feeling on what's going on) and on the
> pro scene knowledge of your opponent's style.

I wouldn't be surprised if an AI comes along that shows this human perception
of what it takes to win isn't required at all. I'm sure similar things were
said about Go and Chess.

~~~
jdoliner
Similar things weren't really said about Go or Chess. Both are perfect
information games so, by definition, they can't involve deceit There's no need
to try to detect subtle patterns in your opponents behavior because you have
the entire game in front of you. That's not to say it's impossible but they do
very much have their work cut out for them. It's an entirely different type of
game that is much more difficult than Go and Chess.

~~~
seanwilson
> Similar things weren't really said about Go or Chess. Both are perfect
> information games so, by definition, they can't involve deceit

I took deceit to mean tricking your opponent into thinking you were doing one
thing when you were actually going to do another. You can't do that in Go or
Chess?

What I generally meant was maybe there's some really boring numerical number
crunching or some simple mechanical algorithm that solves games like StarCraft
but when humans talk about it, they talk about mind games, deceit,
intimidation etc. when maybe these things are irrelevant.

~~~
Barrin92
>I took deceit to mean tricking your opponent into thinking you were doing one
thing when you were actually going to do another. You can't do that in Go or
Chess?

Well you can technically but it's horrible. No above amateur player tries to
play 'trick moves'. Skilled players try to find the objectively best moves in
the given position because tricks are just way to easily spotted.

The "betcha didn't see that coming!" thing is only something they do in
dramatised films. Stracraft and other RTS games on the other hand abuse lack
of information quite heavily. 'Cheese strategies' or unorthodox openings are
very frequently used at the highest level.

~~~
__s
Caveat for picking openings to get out of your opponent's book

Karpov playing black, throws opponent off with 1 ..a6
[http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1068157](http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1068157)

Also, good players seek to not lose lost games
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swindle_(chess)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swindle_\(chess\))

~~~
Barrin92
Yes, people play silly moves once in two decades, but again, in 99.9% of games
nobody swindles or plays a6. In starcraft a good third of pro games or
something involves cheesy openings.

------
tdaltonc
I'd love to see a e-sport league where the teams are AI human hybrids (Centaur
teams). We know that AI human hybrid teams are great at chess [1], and I'd
love to see rts games played by 'Centaur' teams. In the same way the
innovations made in F1 often trickle down to consumer cars, can you imagine
the advances that could be made in human-machine interactions in the crucible
of a real-time Centaur gaming league?

[1] [http://bloomreach.com/2014/12/centaur-chess-brings-best-
huma...](http://bloomreach.com/2014/12/centaur-chess-brings-best-humans-
machines/)

~~~
bradleyjg
If they allowed you to script micro unit behavior in some way that'd be first
step in a hybrid game.

~~~
hooloovoo_zoo
It would also be cool if it was an upgrade you unlock. So, instead of just
stat upgrades, you could also purchase AI upgrades.

~~~
bradleyjg
I'd rather that the coding was something that was left to the player or to the
third party market. Right now programming games are kind of boring, more like
a way of prettying up homework than anything else. A really fun game where
programming could give you a competitive edge would be something to see.

The closest thing I can think of is add-ons for MMOs, but there the game
developers specifically try to prevent add-ons that are too performance
enhancing instead of making the coding an integral part of the game.

------
rkuykendall-com
This would be so much more fun with a turn-based game where speed isn't a
variable, like Civilization. I'd love to play against several AIs that were
better than me because of code, not because they get a bunch of extra in-game
bonuses. With a nice AI API, you could have online competitions where AIs
battled every month.

------
wodenokoto
This paper is a few years old, but it gives a good overview of the problems
faced when building an AI for starcraft and the methods used.

Ontanón, Santiago, et al. "A survey of real-time strategy game ai research and
competition in starcraft." IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and
AI in games 5.4 (2013): 293-311.

[http://webdocs.cs.ualberta.ca/~cdavid/pdf/starcraft_survey.p...](http://webdocs.cs.ualberta.ca/~cdavid/pdf/starcraft_survey.pdf)

------
Miner49er
Looks like they are going to limit the APM of the AI. I wonder how they are
going to decide the limit? I've never played StarCraft, but from what I
understand very high APM is needed to play the game at the highest levels.

~~~
nharada
Back when I played SC2, you really didn't need a high APM to succeed, unlike
SC1. SC2 offered some helpful mechanics that SC1 did not, such as the ability
to select infinite units at once, or give commands to multiple structures at
one. I think Sheth, a high level Zerg player, was famous for having under 100
APM.

~~~
thaumasiotes
I'll consider APM "not high" when it gets down to 12. Two actions per second
is comfortably "high".

~~~
uw_rob
That may be an ok definition for you, but it most certainly isn't for SC2. I
wasn't anywhere near the pro level and I would peak at 300 apm and would spend
most of the game around 200. 12 APM is borderline not playing.

~~~
thaumasiotes
Consider it a statement about what I'm looking for in a game. I'm not really
interested in competing over who can work their mouse button harder, or in
driving myself to excel in giving myself repetitive motion injuries. Those are
things that take away from starcraft; they don't enhance it.

~~~
halflings
I would strongly encourage you to go against your preconceived idea of what
StarCraft is (a game where people compete on who's the fastest to bash their
keys) and see a professional game and all the strategy it entails, such as in
the semi-finals and grand final that will be on today. Pro players do have
valid reasons for having such a high APM (even if a portion of it, maybe 30%,
is just "spamming" to keep theirselves active and ready), but you can be an
excellent player with rather low APM (~120 maybe?). Why would you need to do 2
action per second? A lot of it is simply building units periodically (e.g
pressing 1 then "S" every 10 seconds) but then APM really gets high when there
is a battle and you need to give actions to multiple sets of units to get a
good engagement.

------
brylie
It would be cool to see a project like this for an open source game, such as
OpenTransportTycoonDeluxe
([http://www.openttd.org/](http://www.openttd.org/)). The AI developed by
interacting with the OpenTTD economy might even prove useful for urban
planning of real geographic regions.

------
fitzwatermellow
Training data? After all, AlphaGo trained on a database of over 30M expert
human moves. I suspect one championship round from Team EnVy is worth billions
of iterations of random exploration ;)

Kudos to both Blizzard and DeepMind. Anticipating a lot of fun with this.
StarCraft 2 could indeed become the AI pedagogy standard.

------
Savageman
That's so cool! I wish they could start doing AI for team based competitive
games like League of Legends where meta-play and team decision making is
important. Is that too complicated to tackle yet?

~~~
rcthompson
Are you imagining a single AI playing all 5 heroes on a team, or 5 independent
AIs each playing a single hero with limited communication between them, or a
single AI controlling a single hero on a team with 4 humans? I would say the
first scenario (1 AI controlling entire team) is roughly equivalent to the the
RTS case. It's just fewer units with more abilities, and character progression
instead of base building. The other two cases are probably a lot more
complicated.

~~~
Savageman
Either one could work. If the single AI that controls 5 heroes is easier to
program, let's imagine that. I have the feeling that it's more complicated
than a 1vs1 RTS game, but I don't know why...

~~~
CydeWeys
Controlling five units is a lot easier than playing an RTS. In an RTS you
don't just control five units, you control potentially hundreds of units, and
you have base-building and an economy to manage.

------
deepnotderp
By the ways, if anyone's interested, there was a deluge of deep learning
papers today and one of them basically used deep learning to make deep
learning models and it did better than humans.

~~~
beaner
Source?

~~~
deepnotderp
"Neural architecture search with reinforcement learning"

------
partycoder
That's great. AIs on SC1 relied on many hacks. Initially I thought that
DeepMind was going to create a bot for the original SC.

I hope some of the advances in SC2 AI can be integrated into the in-game AI.
e.g: a trained neural network that plays better than the "hard" AI, but can
run on a consumer box and not on a massive cluster.

------
simopaa
I would love to keep a 24/7 stream open where the AI is continuously playing
against the game's own bots in order to improve its playstyle.

~~~
Houshalter
Typically they train the AI against itself. That gives it a continuous skill
gradient. Otherwise it would lose all of the games without learning anything.
Since there are no successes to learn from. Or it would win all the games
after it figures out how to exploit the built-in bot. With strategies that
probably won't apply to humans.

------
bluebeard
This will be good for games moving forward due to the meta changing for
players as the AI adapts to their tactics and vice versa. Lessons learned from
this can then be applied to other areas. And as an added bonus it creates more
interest in AI research.

------
xg15
I applaud the idea, but I'm worried about how open the results of the research
will be in the end.

I think the worst possible outcome for society would be if we ended up with
capable AI but with the algorithms only accessible for a handful "AI-as-a-
service" companies.

The second concern is understandability of the algorithms: from what I've
read, it's already hard to deduce "why" an ANN in a traditional problem
behaved like it did. An AI that is capable of coping with dynamic,
unpredictable situations like an SC game (with only pixels as input) is
impressive but it seems less useful to me if it's not understood _how_ that is
done.

~~~
halflings
DeepMind always published papers about their research (the AlphaGo paper goes
into a lot of details on how everything works). Not sure why you're doubting
the openness of this initiative when they are pushing an open API for
everybody to do research on, not just DeepMind.

------
ChrisAntaki
> We’re particularly pleased that the environment we’ve worked with Blizzard
> to construct will be open and available to all researchers next year.

This is awesome. I've only ever reached the Platinum league in Starcraft II
(1v1), but I'd almost feel more driven to create bots to (hopefully) surpass
that skill level, than actually playing the game.

------
seanwilson
Can a simulation of a complete Starcraft game be done quickly and assuming it
can't doesn't that present problems to training an AI? For example, I'm
guessing complete games of Go are order of magnitudes faster to simulate which
makes it more practical to do things like getting AlphaGo to play against
itself to train.

~~~
dsjoerg
No, the fastest they can do right now is 8x. And yes, that will become a
substantial bottleneck for AI training. I imagine they're going to have to
have a large sim-farm for just running the games at 8x for training.

------
jasikpark
Comparing AI and humans in games is not useful unless all limitations are
controlled for both parties. The artificial intelligence only gets the video
output of the game and output to simple controls with a human reflex - like
lag on how long it takes for the controls to take effect. It just comes down
to the scientific method.

------
simonebrunozzi
This is a wasted opportunity for other strategy games to become the most
played game on the planet.

I sometimes play strategy games and I always find the AI disappointing. Any
game with a great AI would be my favorite for years. Heck, I would even pay a
few dozen cents/hour to be able to compete against a proper AI.

------
tylerpachal
For anyone looking for more information about Starcraft 2, the world
championship is on this weekend and the broadcast for today has just started
(16:30EST)

[https://www.twitch.tv/starcraft](https://www.twitch.tv/starcraft)

------
KZeillmann
This is so exciting. I've always wanted to program bots to play online games
-- mainly for learning purposes. (Can I make a bot that plays better than me?)

But I've never done it because of the risk of bans. I'm glad that Blizzard has
opened it up for people to experiment with this. I wonder how it will interact
with any sort of anti-cheat systems in place, etc.

~~~
tylerpachal
This has been around for awhile [1]. They give you an API to use and then you
upload your JAR. They have a Twitch channel [2] that is constantly streaming
AIs playing against each other in their tournament.

[1] [http://sscaitournament.com](http://sscaitournament.com)

[2] [https://www.twitch.tv/certicky](https://www.twitch.tv/certicky)

~~~
pdimitar
This has to be the most interesting link in this whole thread. Thank you so
much!

------
luka-birsa
Anybody else sees a problem with training the AI to move troops around a
battlefield, with the purpose to exterminate the opponent?

~~~
stale2002
No?

Starcraft isn't troops on the battlefield, in the same way that Risk, the
boardgame isn't troops on the battlefield.

Just because the 1s and 0s or game pieces represent "troops" to humans,
doesn't mean that the underlying game mechanics have anything at all to do
with a real war.

For all we know, the problems solved by a monopoly AI, are more applicable to
a real war than those solved by a Risk or starcraft AI.

~~~
spacehacker
You must admit that there is an underlying aggressive theme in games like
StarCraft. The visuals show clear resemblance of people being killed by
projectiles and by other war technology. The AI will be rewarded for
skillfully decimating the enemy, for protecting the units it has control over
and for coming up with strategies like ambush, raids, patrolling etc. I am
more convinced by the idea that an AI will be able generalize to the real
world from playing StarCraft than from playing Monopoly. However, I think it
will be quite a leap to the real world either way.

~~~
ssalazar
> You must admit that there is an underlying aggressive theme in these games.
> The visuals show clear resemblance of people being killed by projectiles and
> by other war technology.

An AI doesn't know or care about any of this. Literally its applying
statistics to optimize a cost function or assign labels to input states. These
numbers could represent number of kills or number of dollars; the computer
doesn't care.

~~~
Spellman
And that's what makes it ~spooooooky~.

It's just absentmindedly optimizing a cold value function! No more humanity!
More more external input! Just cold machine logic!

We've doomed ourselves!!!!

But seriously. No, there is nothing inherent about an AI maximizing wins in
StarCraft than one maximizing profits on the stock exchange. Although I feel
like there's a bunch of Sci-Fi where this obviously goes awry.

------
randyrand
I hope the AI will have a handicap on the speed of mouse movement. IRL you
can't just teleport the mouse around the screen.

------
andrew3726
This is really good news! Lets hope DeepMind can improve even further on their
Differentiable neural computers (DNC) which seems like an requirement for this
kind of AI to work (exploiting long-term dependencies). I also hope that other
research/industry teams will join on the competition to create competing AIs.
Very exciting!

------
Havoc
This is awesome. I know there is a happy AI community on SC1 front so glad to
see Blizzard anything on SC2 front.

------
plg
I understand the challenge, and the importance of the proof-of-principle. But
again? Having done Atari games, then Go, at what point exactly does google
deepmind start attacking some real world problems of consequence?

Or maybe the answer is never, other companies are supposed to do the hard
work? We only play games?

~~~
wsetchell
They are publicly working on medicine and energy problems. Games just happen
to be a convenient place to do research.

[https://deepmind.com/blog/putting-patients-heart-deepmind-
he...](https://deepmind.com/blog/putting-patients-heart-deepmind-health/)
[https://deepmind.com/blog/applying-machine-learning-
radiothe...](https://deepmind.com/blog/applying-machine-learning-radiotherapy-
planning-head-neck-cancer/) [https://deepmind.com/blog/deepmind-ai-reduces-
google-data-ce...](https://deepmind.com/blog/deepmind-ai-reduces-google-data-
centre-cooling-bill-40/)

------
simpfai
Does anyone know of any resources for someone looking to learn more about Game
AI for real time strategy games?

~~~
luminiferous
The Berkeley Overmind was designed for a 2010 Brood War competition. The
website
([http://overmind.cs.berkeley.edu/](http://overmind.cs.berkeley.edu/)),
although no longer updated, still contains many videos and links to articles
that describe the internals of the AI and the design process. The Ars Technica
article in particular goes quite in depth.

------
lanius
I can't wait to see how far DeepMind can go in this area. I was initially
skeptical that AlphaGo could defeat top human players, but then it happened.
Who knows, perhaps one day AI can compete against progamers in GSL!

~~~
placeybordeaux
Competitive AI in broodwar already can destroy the best humans. AI can use
strategies and tactics that human can't effectively do. Most notable is
perfect splitting which changes the game quite a bit.

~~~
erik
Do you have a reference on this? Last I looked into it broodwar AI bots were
easily beaten by competent humans.

------
oblio
I wonder when we'll be at a point that a small, portable AI (such as the one
included with games) is actually competitive with decent humans.

------
kleigenfreude
First we teach it Atari games, and now strategy and war?

Why not give it lots of data to solve real problems? Training it on useless
games will have no benefit.

------
pizza
Nice! I cracked a joke about how SC2 was nothing more than an AI testbed just
last week, lol. Very glad to see it's becoming a real thing!

------
prawn
Makes me wonder if any game companies have seeded empty servers with bots,
acting as humans, to give their games a sense of popularity.

~~~
pdimitar
I don't see why not, unless the game eventually becomess a boss-infested
cesspool where players can't have any fun of course.

------
andr
I wonder if AI will take over eSports (Twitch, competitions, etc.), as well.
It could be a variant of the Turing test.

------
noiv
Hopefully there's a JS/Spidermonkey interface. I'd be happy to port Hannibal
from 0AD.

~~~
tgb
What does Hannibal do that makes it portable? My impression is most game AI is
essentially completely game specific, outside of, eg, pathfinding.

------
komaromy
My mostly-uneducated o/u on the time to beat the best human players is 8
years.

------
yaboyhud
plug: [https://medium.com/new-game/comp-
stomp-b8fe687fbeb6](https://medium.com/new-game/comp-stomp-b8fe687fbeb6)

------
felix_thursday
OpenAI vs DeepMind?

------
cryptrash
I'm pretty excited about this. I think some kids out there will really enjoy
an environment like this to mess with, and maybe learn a thing or two about
machine learning along the way.

Starcraft is a really fun game, and I think it's enough to engage kids a
little more than something like Minecraft where there's plenty of room for
some cool ML hacking, but not enough stimulation from it. Instead of just
seeing blocks here or there or whatever, starcraft has hard goals that will
force them to use critical thinking skills, their knowledge of the game, their
own personal strategic insights, and the ML skills they accrue.

So exciting! Love the feature layer idea also, well done!

~~~
pdimitar
I agree. SC2 is a _very_ strategic game and has tons of potential for
scouting, fake attacks, distractions, diversions and all sorts of deceitful
play. And that's coming _after_ having a good micro-management of units, using
perfect timing for expanding your economy, upgrading your units, proxy
offense, and a ton of other mechanics.

DeepMind really chose well. SC2 has to be the most demanding game nowadays in
terms of strategy and execution.

------
flamedoge
This is dangerous. Overmind will come to life.

~~~
luminiferous
The UC Berkeley AI for Brood War (designed for the 2010 AIIDE StarCraft
competition) was literally named the Berkeley Overmind.

[http://overmind.cs.berkeley.edu/](http://overmind.cs.berkeley.edu/)

------
ambar123
I will consider AI to human level.. When it can fully play gta san-andreas

