Both 2 and 3 can mentally manipulate objects in 3D. I have type 2 as I mentioned, but I can do full 3d rotations and such. It's just a "minds eye" kinda thing and not like i'm actually seeing it with my eyes. That makes it kinda difficult to line up my minds eye comprehension with the actual world I see in front of me. whereas people with prophantasia or that third type, should have no issues lining up their visualization with their actual vision.
Otome-chan
joined 1 year ago
Right. "prophantasia" is a word used to refer to that "it's like you're actually seeing it", whereas visualization for me isn't like that and it's more like what you described, a sort of mental idea, like I can think of and mentally understand imagery, but it's not like I'm actually looking at it with my eyes (like when I see things or am in a lucid dream).
It seems some people with visualization do this "minds eye" kinda thing, and the some have that "it's like you're seeing" type.
This is what I have. basically not aphantasia (we can still manipulate visual imagery in our brains) but it's also not prophantasia which is essentially just seeing, but with thoughts.
From my amateur independent digging I actually found people fall into three groups on this, not two:
-
Aphantasia - Not being able to visualize 8at all*
-
What I consider "regular" visualization, ie a "minds eye" or "back of the mind" sort of thing, that's distinctly different from how you normally see visually with your eyes.
-
Prophantasia - In which you can visualize things that appear to you how simply looking at something would appear.
I saw someone on reddit apparently go from aphantasia to prophantasia but people were calling BS on them. I'm in group 2 myself and would love to be able to do prophantasia. So I'm curious if anyone has managed it?
If unemployment is 10%, then the actual amount of people who aren't employed anywhere is 50%. Because the laborforce participation rate is only 60% of the population.
They realize 40% of the population isn't employed, right?
The issue with procedural generation is the game has to be built for it from the ground up and in a modular way. AAAs try to make themselves appealing by using novel new high quality assets that aren't modular.
I haven't played starfield so idk what they ended up doing, but from the sound of it they have pre-made assets/areas that they then place onto pre-generated worlds in a randomized way.
To make one of these "areas" procedural in itself, they'd then have to code a whole system for that. With AAA/3D the hard part is making modular environments without it looking repetitive or ugly.
My point isn't so much that it can't be done in a AAA game. But rather that it's risky to do (not all players like it), and you have to structure your development around it. Lots can go wrong, there's stuff you gotta sacrifice to make it work, etc.
If starfield is on the old bethesda engine then that's even more of a reason. You can't just plug and play an entire procedural generation thing in there without some fairly large overhauls or just gluing on an unrelated system.
In practice, bethesda probably took the lazy route: using their existing engine without major changes, then just making new assets for it, throwing stuff about a bit randomly, and calling it a day.
That's the thing about procedural generation is: it's a lot of effort and sucks up a huge part of the game's development and comes at some pretty strict costs (repetitive looking environments/gameplay, reduced novelty, larger programming dev time to make it work). It can be done, but for a cost-cutting AAA studio they're not gonna bother.
You can, but randomizing chests+locked doors is kinda complicated, and the more "interesting" your generations the harder it is to code and the more dev time it takes. And for a AAA game release you can't really do that.
Key+Lock randomization is something that has been solved, and has been used most notably in procedurally generated zeldalikes. But that's still niche indie territory, and not used for major game releases.
"1000+ planets are dull on purpose"
No, they're dull because no human team could make 1000 planets worth of interesting content in a single game development cycle.
That's the theory, yeah. That hiccups are something to do with switching between gills and lungs and that reminding yourself you're no longer a fish stops that.
what happens if you don't have a phone number? you're just prevented from having a bank account?
So I'm firmly in type 2. I can close my eyes and just see black/the back of my eyelids. No matter how hard I try I will never be able to "override" my actual vision. Instead, I have a sort of "mental" model in my brain which can handle imagery and 3d scenes and such, but it's very different in experience than my actual vision. The two don't overlap at all for me.
"ghostly" is how I'd describe it, but it's really a different set of qualia altogether, not a "faint" version of my vision.
But yeah as you mention a few comments here kinda makes it sound like it's just a matter of practicing visualization (trying to create objects within my actual field of vision, as well as "emphasize" or "focus" on my #2 visualization). I'll have to spend time seeing if I can practice it...