“Well, first of all, they’re completely wrong,” Huang said in response to a question from Tom’s Hardware editor-in-chief Paul Alcorn about the criticism.
“The reason for that is because, as I have explained very carefully, DLSS 5 fuses controllability of the of geometry and textures and everything about the game with generative AI,” Huang continued.
Just a elongated way to say AI slop.
I think most people are ok with frame gen because it doesn’t touch the actual content. It just moves things around a bit with motion vectors which actually was kind of a thing even before AI although not very good. It didn’t repaint the game into some different art style.
Also there were real frames in there.
This is going to 100% replace the game graphics.
Naw most people are not ok with fake frames, and like raytracing is getting less and less likely to be left on. Most people however hate fake frames not due to the frames themselves but the motion blur effect that seems to be needed to make things look ok on top of the frame gen (no one likes motion blur).
You are right that this is going to replace game graphics to some degree since its another shortcut game studios can use to cut costs (and the industry is kinda struggling at the moment). Why spend effort, time and money making a model look good when you can use a tool to gloss over the work and while it does not look “good” per say it will look better then it should.
Yep, I’m more suggesting that this was the logical path they would have continued down.
I personally don’t like the generation because it’s functionally noise and can effect the feel / responsiveness of the game. Upscaling seems pretty reasonable - but like many I just can’t abide by the notion that we are counting a generated frame as a frame for benchmark sake.
I’m not against framegen existing. It’s a preference. Same as that feature on TVs. To each their own.
Back to the new dlss though: yeah it was inevitable they go here… and I’m personally thrilled this was the line everyone more or less took issue with.