Culture Victory

[Kuciwalker]

For me, a culture victory is even more anticlimactic than a UN victory. It's just like "end turn" and suddenly it says "you've won!" I got so pissed at getting culture victories when I wanted to win by some other means that I always turn it off.

[Aeson]

I'm using MysteryMan's definition(s):

The AI is incapable of creative thought. I expect better from my fellow man...

So an algorithm is incapable of 'creative' (absolute) thought. I agree, because the definition of creative in this sense must be something that isn't obtained through an algorithm (read: recipe). The problem lies in that he then claims an algorithm also is (or should be) capable of creative thought in the same passage.

We are nothing more than algorithms ourselves. Unless you want to argue that what we don't understand doesn't have a possible explaination. In physics, an explaination is an algorithm. A mathmatical representation of the function of matter/energy. Either the process (us) works on an algorithm, or it doesn't. One case is causal, the other random. (and is anything actually random?)

Certainly there are definitions that you can give the term 'creative' (relative) that would apply to us, but they would also have to apply to any algorithm, because that's what we consist of. That's why I disagree with a statement that translates to, "An algorithm isn't capable of creative thought, but an algorithm is capable of creative thought". At best it's mixing terms, using the absolute in relation to one algorithm, and the relative in relation to the other. It just comes off confusing and deceptive if that is the case.

I took the time to make a point about it here because that mentality was being used to make derisive and condescending remarks about 'players'. The context of those statements leads to the perception that it applies to anyone who comes here and learns anything about the game, and then applies that knowlege in the game... which we all do. Supposedly, real players don't actually understand the workings of the game, but instead come up with innovative solutions without needing to understand the underlying game mechanics to do so. Something from nothing, which seems to imply that he really wasn't using the mixed terms, but rather the absolute in both cases.

As to how I'd define 'creative' (relative), it is simply producing something out of something else through any process. If the process is sufficiently incomprehensible it seems like the product is derived in a sort of magical manner. Something from nothing. But that is only due to lack of understanding about the process. How creative we deem the output is normally determined by how well the output meshes with our own processes (say a peice of art that strikes an emotional sensitivity), and to some extent to how incomprehensible the process is ("how'd he come up with that?").

The concept of creativity is easily explainable... we just don't know how everything works, but our mind is formatted in a manner which requires a reason, a cause, for everything. In an evolutionary sense, it's rather fitting that the ones who come up with the answers are the ones who are formed to always require answers. If our mind didn't require those answers, we wouldn't search for them. If an answer isn't available, our mind formats a 'most plausible' one based off our prior experience. That could be a simple substitution, or a more complex conglomeration of source material. The process may or may not be marked with an 'asterisk' which signifies the conscious (or even subconscious) awareness that the absolute explaination hasn't been reached yet.

When our mind is fed the input from something 'creative' (ie. that without an apparent causal nature), it processes it, finds no apparent cause, and because of the nature of the human mind, catalogs a 'most plausible' one anyways. In the case of explaining the apparent creation of something from nothing, this infered 'cause' that doesn't exist has been labeled creativity. It explains away a natural phenomenon that isn't fully understood, without requiring an absolute understanding of that phenomenon.

Care to count how many of those types of explainations we've had in human history?

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Aeson
We are nothing more than algorithms ourselves.

An algorithm is a process that solves a problem, or at least does something with purpose. That definition does not really apply to us, as by-products of nature and evolution.

Unless you want to argue that what we don't understand doesn't have a possible explanation.

I am fully prepared to accept that there are some concepts that will never be explained away by our even our best thinkers. Some things will simply not be comprehensible in full by our "simple" minds. This does not mean that it defies explanation; it just defies our explanation. Creativity could well fall into that group.

(and is anything actually random?)

At our level, probably not. At the quantum level, most definitely. Perhaps we'll never understand that level because of this very dichotomy.

That's why I disagree with a statement that translates to, "An algorithm isn't capable of creative thought, but an algorithm is capable of creative thought".

If that's what the statement translates to, then I disagree with it, too.

I took the time to make a point about it here because that mentality was being used to make derisive and condescending remarks about 'players'. The context of those statements leads to the perception that it applies to anyone who comes here and learns anything about the game, and then applies that knowlege in the game... which we all do.

Although framing the "problem" in terms of creativity is not the way to go (as you've pointed out), there is definitely an issue here. Some people feel that the ones who read these boards and over-analyze the game come by their wins "too easily". By putting yourself among a community of the (presumably) best players, who can say that you're the one who is really good at Civ3...maybe you're just copying everyone else's moves. Contrast this with figuring out certain moves for yourself (however you define "creatively").

Given the information age we're currently in, I'm not entirely sympathetic with this point of view. Internet communities such as this one will be great engines of progress in the future, in all areas of life (not just games). So saying that this board is bad is not going along with the changing of the times.

This does not really address the "over-analysis" issue. Are people that tinker to figure out the game's inner mechanisms more or less creative when they finally play the game? I would say neither, and that this is no more than a matter of personal preference.

As final comment: when I play the game and figure out something for myself, I feel creative and that makes me feel good. This is why I play a game by myself for quite a while before coming to read forums. GalCiv is a good example for me. Does this behaviour make me a better or worse player? As I said, it's a matter of preference.


Dominae

[Aeson]

An algorithm is a process that solves a problem, or at least does something with purpose. That definition does not really apply to us, as by-products of nature and evolution.

A human being isn't an algorithm. The function of the human mind is composed of algorithms. That's what I as saying. Sorry if it wasn't clear. Our mind certainly has 'purpose' (desire, need), even if that purpose is only on a personal level, and doesn't satiate any outside or intended purpose. We are faced with problems to solve all the time. If we find a purpose in doing so, we attempt to solve them.

I am fully prepared to accept that there are some concepts that will never be explained away by our even our best thinkers. Some things will simply not be comprehensible in full by our "simple" minds. This does not mean that it defies explanation; it just defies our explanation. Creativity could well fall into that group.

If it defies explaination, then any qualification based on it is baseless. The abstract concept of a process which works without a process is useless to base any conclusions on. So the question still is, is there an underlying process, or isn't there?

I'm ok with either answer, as randomness is no more our creativity (absolute) than a causal process. Randomness, if it exists, is certainly creative (absolute), it's just not something we could attribute to ourselves. It is outside our control. If we controled it, it wouldn't be random.

At our level, probably not. At the quantum level, most definitely.

At the quantum level it's not really random either, just probabilities (I'm not an expert though).

A random factor (in the sense I've been using the word, meaning a result with no defining rules) would make everything random. For example, take any equation with a defined answer, add a random factor, and the result of the new equation can be anything. The rest of the equation ceases to matter, because the random factor consumes the output of whole process. The random factor can give any result, the equation can give any result, and so the equation is nothing more than random.

In regards to quantum physics, if any reaction was truely random... Then Schrodinger's cat wouldn't simply be either dead or alive while not observed, but also it would be everything while not observed. The result of observation itself would then be random... opening the box might reveal anything from a black hole to a chess set, or the universe would just cease to exist perhaps. Randomness doesn't have any constraints, isn't ruled by rules. That's what makes it random.

Probability exists though. You can roll dice. It's not randomness, just gives a hint of it within certain constraints. The cat is either dead or alive (and actually is both), but it isn't also a pink elephant and everything else.

Regardless of what you think happens on a quantum level, it's rather clear that we don't control it. The vast majority of people don't even have a slight comprehension of what is going on at that level (myself included), and so how could we be considered to be in control of it, thus 'creating' through these probabilities? Not to mention that rolling dice isn't usually considered a creative process (modern art may take exception in some cases ).

By putting yourself among a community of the (presumably) best players, who can say that you're the one who is really good at Civ3...maybe you're just copying everyone else's moves. Contrast this with figuring out certain moves for yourself (however you define "creatively").

It's not about who is really good at Civ3. It's about who has the right to insult or deride anyone else based on how 'creative' they play?

As Jesus (if he played Civ3) would say: "Let he who has never applied a concept learned outside Civ3 to his Civ3 games commence bombardment".

Are people that tinker to figure out the game's inner mechanisms more or less creative when they finally play the game? I would say neither, and that this is no more than a matter of personal preference.

That's the whole point of my argument. If they are neither more or less creative, why deride anyone based on an undefinable, unapplicable concept such as creativity? It's baseless any way you look at it. Either it's an unexplainable concept, which then offers no basis for any conclusion, or it's the same process for all of us, following rules, and not really creative at all.

[Nor Me]

Dominae, is it a sign of being good at civ or creative or whatever it is you want to be if you come up with a strategy without reading the boards and find either that almost everyone else has discovered the same thing or, worse, that many have but the consensus is that it's worse because there's another strategy that you discover is better when you try it?

By reading the boards, I have a good idea that some of the ideas that I've thought of are new or at least not known to everyone and I'd say that that's more useful.

I doubt that there's a real risk of reading what's here and then believing that something works when I could have thought of something better if only I'd not listened to everyone else.

Though, at one point, I was going to start a thread on "Is there something we haven't realised yet?". It's just that it would have been a waste of time.


On the issue of "cookbook recipe" victories, I'd wonder if any game played by MysterMan couldn't be as easily summarised so that anyone who could follow the best one for early cultural victory could do reasonably well in an imitation of MysteryMan's style.
I'd say that there probably is such a recipe for many of his games and that this hurts his argument.

Most of these cookbook recipes will have been written by those who've gone on to play the one game so it will have been an original plan in as far as any plan is original.

[Solomwi]

I think anybody who reads the fora to find a "cookie cutter" strategy to substitute for their own is missing the point.

I come to the boards and see things I hadn't thought of, but instead of just trying to copy, say, Aeson's last game, those ideas and tactics become more tools to put in my box for my next game. It still takes a pretty good player to decide which tool to use in which circumstance.

What I'm saying is that the overall effect of reading different strats and tactics is to raise my level of play, not through rote, but through raising my thought process during the game and opening new doors of consideration. I bet that's not uncommon among posters here.

[Nor Me]

Solomwi, part of the point of this thread is that it really does take a radically different strategy to aim for cultural victory from 4000BC. Whether this strategy is "cookie cutter" or not, a description of a strategy is useful for someone who's never tried it.

I agree that a different way of thinking about strategy is useful. I still attribute a lot of my ability at civ3 from lurking in the Apolyton civ2 strategy forum before civ3 was released. I realised I'd been playing civ2 averagely for years. Even though none of the strategies there were actually applicable to civ3 since I'd already mastered the basics of REX etc., the way of thinking proved useful.

[Solomwi]

No doubt, it does take a different strategy and mindset to aim for a culture victory. I was just kind of chiming in on the digression into the nature of picking up knowledge from other players.

[realpolitic]

The cultural victories I've heard describe usually occur after 1800, so the "cookbook" says to have cultural improvements by rushed or conventionally built by about 600-700 AD so that the telescoping time can get you lots of 1000 year bonus.

[MysteryMan]

Originally posted by Aeson
The human mind is a computer. The matter in a human brain reacts according to laws of physics just like the matter in any other processor, regardless of the medium that comprises it. We gather data from senses. Process, store, retrieve, and extrapolate from that data. The processes involved evolve through use (which is pretty much constant), the evolution dictated by the same laws.
Or perhaps you think thought is somehow conjured from nothing?

The inner workings of the human brain is the single largest mystery in modern medicine. The inner workings of a computer can and is daily explained to Grade 9 students. A new computer can play chess and beat ANYBODY, from Bobby Fisher on down. No computer could have CREATED chess.

Please write down a recipe for victory in Civ III that requires no decision making on the part of the player... Keep track of all the moves, interactions with the AI, ect. It will work on one map (f preserve random seed is on), but on every other it will fail miserably.

A player's moves, interactions with the AI, etc, *when viewed individually* are TACTICAL and not STRATEGIC. Civ III falls under the category of turn based strategy game. This implies that the core of the game is strategic (which I personally agree with). The tactics write themselves, based on the strategies in play. Thus, there is no need for a tactical recipe for victory. However, there are many strategic recipes, although I am forced to concede that they are not 'recipes' in the extremely literal sense. Rather, they make the biggest decisions in the game for you and leave the details up to you. (IMHO - this is only my perspective, I've been wrong occasionally)

Even more abstract recipes are going to fail in many circumstances. For instance, should you build a Granary in your capitol? Which tech should you research first? How many units and which type should you build before attacking?

Well, someone following the ICS 'recipe' might well decide to put a Granary in their Capitol. That is a valid tactical decision (made by the player) based on (someone else's) well reasoned strategy. The thing I like most about games like CivIII is that it is so deep that you can actually LEARN things of value in it. That is probably also the source of my objections to using the various strategic formulas. It seems to me (and I know this is relative) that there are people missing the best part of the game.

You seem to want to pretend that some players don't actually play the game. I'm just saying that there is no room for that high horse, every player is doing the exact same thing when playing. Applying their understanding of the rules of the game in a manner which will allow them to achieve their desired goal.

I'm sorry, I did not intend to cut people down for following these strategies. I was trying to get people to think on their own. And this sure did get way OT, I guess that's also my bad.

I didn't mean to start an arguement - although it is kind of an interesting one, parts of it remind me of the free will vs fate debate and I'd sure like to add some more about the algorithm thing but I've been OT enough - and I didn't mean to cut people down. No one (I hope) plays this game using ONLY the formulas. Apologies to anyone who feels I slighted them, I will endeavor to avoid statements that seem to belittle people, and I'll shut up about this topic.
Maybe I can make it all better by attempting to define 'creativity'. *deep breath*
When someone looks at something that everyone can see, and sees something that no one else has seen, that is creativity.

[MysteryMan]

Originally posted by Nor Me
....the way of thinking proved useful.

See, this is what I like about Civ games. Once you know the thought pattern that is most effective, you can apply it to many other things that are much more important than computer games.

I learned most of my best strategies from a PBEM game called VGA Planets (this was before even Civ). But realizing the strategic similarities binding tactically different situations is a very useful skill, and not just in the world of computer games. Civ III is not a waste of time, for me, it is an opportunity to create and play-test innovative strategies. Even if I sit down and play for only an hour, I still learn something, every time.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Aeson
If it defies explaination, then any qualification based on it is baseless.

This is equivalent to saying that any that is currently in our experience (i.e. something that we have a concept for) is explainable, either in terms of a process which we already understand, or a new one which we can/will discover. I see no basis for this statement other than it's appeal to our egos.

I'm ok with either answer, as randomness is no more our creativity (absolute) than a causal process. Randomness, if it exists, is certainly creative (absolute), it's just not something we could attribute to ourselves. It is outside our control. If we controled it, it wouldn't be random.

A random factor (in the sense I've been using the word, meaning a result with no defining rules) would make everything random.

This is a very curious use of the concept. Surely if die rolls could result in an applie pie appearing, human beings would be a lot more creative!

In general, I believe I agree with all you're saying about randomness and quantum physics.

It's not about who is really good at Civ3. It's about who has the right to insult or deride anyone else based on how 'creative' they play?

Define "creativity" as "the analogical use of old solutions to new problems" (creativity is more than this, surely, but let's keep it simple for now). Then you could say that people who read the Civ3 forums and copy the best strategies are decidedly uncreative (I myself fall into this camp - my contribution of original input has been minuscule). But those people who, say, used their experience in other games or better yet other areas of life (like economics, or military strategy) to come up with Civ3 strategies independently of the community can be said to be "creative". Those who tried to apply Civ2 strategies to Civ3 and failed were certainly trying to be creative, but the problem definitions were too similar and the trap was set to copy strategies outright, resulting (as we all know) in failure.

From the above, I think you can see that there is an argument against non-creativity in Civ3-playing. Whether or not this is important is a whole other issue. Since Civ3 is a game, and Apolyton was created for the Civ community, I personally see nothing wrong with visiting the strategy board and improving your gameplay if that's what you want to do, regardless of whether you're being creative or not. In other words, although it is certainly impressive to come up with new Civ3 strategy by yourself, there's nothing bad about copying all your strategy, because it's a game.

(This whole discussion reminds me of the early days of Mortal Kombat and other such arcade games, where the codes for the moves and were not publicly released. When they were, there was a major backlash against those players who "copied" their moves from the list. Then people realized it was more fun to play with the wide range of moves than the few that could be figured out by trial and error...games cost 50 cents, which is quite a bit when you're a kid!).

Originally posted by Nor Me
Dominae, is it a sign of being good at civ or creative or whatever it is you want to be if you come up with a strategy without reading the boards and find either that almost everyone else has discovered the same thing or, worse, that many have but the consensus is that it's worse because there's another strategy that you discover is better when you try it?

Yes, I agree with this. It is definitely counter-productive to "discover" something that has been discovered already, but that does not make the discovery process useless. That's the heart of the matter here: it is considered a value to "learn for oneself" in our society. The truth of the matter is that group learning is probably just as important and deserving our respect, which is why I think strategy forums are just great.




Dominae

[Arrian]

I'm a latecomer to this debate, so I'll be brief:

I draw a distinction between using a "walkthrough" in say, an RPG and following advice from a strategy forum for a game like Civ, Master of Orion, GalCiv, etc.

The reason for this is that each game of civ is unique. The terrain, the resource distribution, random number rolls (from everything to what you get from huts, to combat luck, to whether or not your suicide galley sinks). Therefore, you are applying the fruits of a discussion, but the decisions you make are still your own, in response to the unique in-game situation.

In the case of a walkthrough, the secret door is still going to be activated by drinking from the 3rd barrel from the right... every time.

$.02 YMMV.

-Arrian

[Cort Haus]

First - the best threadjack since Fanes7, whose 'recipe' was to explore each branch of the RNG tree using reloads to get elites and GL's. Everyone here was amazed that anyone could call that a strategy.

Second - I don't think we can approach a definition of 'creativity' without including the concept of 'pattern recognition'. The human's superior ability at this over today's computers is what seperates the carbon from the silicon.

Third: If nothing else, these types of discussion forums can help the developers to enhance the game to the next level and then the next generation. Which might include nerfing some of the most popular and successful strats developed in think-tanks like this one.

[Aeson]

This is equivalent to saying that any that is currently in our experience (i.e. something that we have a concept for) is explainable, either in terms of a process which we already understand, or a new one which we can/will discover. I see no basis for this statement other than it's appeal to our egos.

'Discover' itself is an ego loaded word that really doesn't fit the idea. If there is no creativity, no free-will (they both boil down to the same argument), then a discovery is nothing more than information being given from one process to another. The funny thing is, everything is already 'known', just not by us (though we are a part of that knowlege). Knowlege is just a representation of what is. Knowlege is more complete the more closely it represents what is. What is is the perfect representation of what is, right?

That is why I say a possible explaination exists. How things are is the prefect representation of that explaination... whether we can read it or not.

To be fair to my statement, you need to also add to your listing "which we can/won't discover and can't/won't discover". I would say the can't/won't is infinitely more than the other 3 options. Believe me, there is no room for ego in the point of view I'm exspousing here. We are results of a process, part of the process, but not a reason for the process, or the creator of the process. That's as humble as it can get ideologically, we are as valuable as everything else. Certainly even this idea can be used egotistically, but only in a hypocritical manner. It requires a person to use that idea in a manner which denies that it is in fact how things are... "I know X, so I'm better than X" conflicts with "everything is equally valuable".

It's interesting that you bring up ego, because it is exactly what I'm trying to refute. The ego of "I came up with X, so I'm better than those who came up with X another way." I would change this to "I came up with X, so I'm different than those who came up with X another way."

As an example from MysteryMan:

When someone looks at something that everyone can see, and sees something that no one else has seen, that is creativity.

I think it's a great definition. You just need to look at it (the definition) the right way. Then everything is creativity.

Back to Dominae:

Surely if die rolls could result in an applie pie appearing, human beings would be a lot more creative!

I'd say it would be the die that's a lot more creative. The human would be a lot more of a gambler though!

Define "creativity" as "the analogical use of old solutions to new problems"

If you use that definition to describe it, then everything is creative except when the initial idea is 'created'. Probably need a limit to how closely the analogy can come to the original and still be analogical for it to be workable, along with a clause for true orgininality. Otherwise you get:

Even copying moves exactly is an analogy as it's happening at a different time. The only case where it wouldn't be an analogy is precisely in the moment most people would call creative... when the idea was first conceived without being the product of past experience. Everything else would be applying that idea analogically.

Doesn't matter if you say... "hey, mass bombardment worked for Napoleon, why not try it in Civ III", or say "hey, Moonsinger used mass bombardment to great affect, why not try it in my game?", both are applying an analogy from a past solution to the new problem. Assuming (incorrectly, but just a hypothetical) that Napoleon and Moonsinger came up with the idea of mass bombardment without having applied some other analogy to do so, they would end up the only non-creative people having done it (later analogical use by them would make them creative in any further instances). They would be applying a new solution to a problem when first coming up with it.

From the above, I think you can see that there is an argument against non-creativity in Civ3-playing.

I already knew why it was being said. I just disagree that it's applicable. It certainly holds no value (outside the speaker) for someone to say "I'm creative and you aren't", or anything comparing creativity. The term creative references a nebulous process (or non-process, doesn't matter), the workings of it unknown in either case. To say one is creative and one isn't is to apply that ignorance of the creative process (or non-process) to an understood (relatively speaking ) medium such as expression. All it guarantees is a baseless statement. Even if it happens to be true!