AI/LLMs DLSS 5 will be the worst thing to EVER happen to video games

[briggart]

It's not just the face, it changes the skintone of black people in very inconsistent ways.

I can't believe I have to say this on a forum about elf games: realism isn't the only artistic expression worth to pursue. Stylisations isn't only because of technology — but it might be — and some of those are semi-realistic. It's not a flaw of a game if it isn't photorealistic.

I’m not sure it’s necessarily the skin tone, rather the white balance with DLSS on seems overall colder, at least in this specific comparison. The ball, various white t-shirts in the background, the letters of the fieldside advertising, ..., DLSS gives them a slightly bluer cast.

But it's not entirely consistent between the two scenes, e.g. the underside of the roof seems warmer with DLSS on.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think people are starting to get lazy with their use of the word “slop”.

It’s already a meaningless word.

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't see the washed out texture on the NPC in the original as an "artistic" vision. That seems more like "That's all we can do with what we have right now, it's good enough". The DLSS 5 one seems to say: "We can do more now!". And yeah, maybe that's 'yassified', but it also has facial details that real people have and just makes it seem more real.
The other details about the scene? I don't know that I'd actually notice them that. I would say that the way the people in the original become schemes in the light fog seems exaggerated, but I am not neccessarily saying that this makes the DLSS 5 one better.

I seem to remember that there was however a part in the video where you saw something that I've seen in other AI generated videos, a weird way the face slightly seems to change or flow in ways real people definitely don't, and it's very distracting when it happens, clearly in the Uncanny Valley.

My take, it’s very good at making the faces more realistic. It’s not as good with small background details.

 

[Gladius Legis]

It’s already a meaningless word.

So meaningless that Microsoft threw a hissy fit over it as recently as earlier this month.

 

[nyvinter]

Nvidia Confirms DLSS 5 Is Re-Drawing Games, and That Sucks

Nvidia has confirmed that the new DLSS 5 algorithm is redrawing games based on a 2D image input and motion data. That's not great!

www.ign.com

When Owen asked whether or not the model is just taking a rendered frame as input, Freeman responded "Yes, DLSS 5 takes a 2D frame plus motion vectors as input." Then, he clarified "DLSS 5 is trained end to end to understand complex scene semantics such as characters, hair, fabric and translucent skin, along with environmental lighting conditions like front-lit, back-lit or overcast, all by analyzing a single frame."

Owen was told the same thing I've been told by Nvidia, too, that developers will have "detailed controls such as intensity and color grading. Artists can use these controls to adjust global contrast, saturation, and gamma, and determine where and how enhancements are applied to maintain the game’s unique aesthetic." But, given what Nvidia has shared about how the model works, these controls seem limited to the kind of sliders you'd find in Adobe Lightroom.

So way far less control for the devs. And considering the images they used for hype, it has way less understanding of environmental lighting than they pretend and tends to do front-lit and back-lit on all characters.

And doing this in every frame, it's going to need a lot of memory that few can afford — even less so after having bought two RTS 5090 cards.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Nvidia Confirms DLSS 5 Is Re-Drawing Games, and That Sucks

Nvidia has confirmed that the new DLSS 5 algorithm is redrawing games based on a 2D image input and motion data. That's not great!

www.ign.com

So way far less control for the devs. And considering the images they used for hype, it has way less understanding of environmental lighting than they pretend and tends to do front-lit and back-lit on all characters.

And doing this in every frame, it's going to need a lot of memory that few can afford — even less so after having bought two RTS 5090 cards.

Well, if people can't afford it anyway, then you're not going to see many games rely on this feature.
They need people buying their games, after all.
Heck, it might be cheaper to simply disable the feature for the developers so they don't need to deal with people complaining about bugs and issues. Which in turns means that nVidia will keep working on it if they think they can make it cheaper or better, or abandon it.

Of course, it is supposed to run on a single card, it's still in development. But even then, a 5090 isn't exactly standard issue.

 

[Tea Cozy]

Nvidia Confirms DLSS 5 Is Re-Drawing Games, and That Sucks

Nvidia has confirmed that the new DLSS 5 algorithm is redrawing games based on a 2D image input and motion data. That's not great!

www.ign.com

So way far less control for the devs. And considering the images they used for hype, it has way less understanding of environmental lighting than they pretend and tends to do front-lit and back-lit on all characters.

Already discussed a bit upthread. Pages 17-18 if you’re interested.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I'm not trying for a gotcha, just trying to explore how "somebody made something in a way I don't agree with" is the "worst thing to ever happen to video games".

When you say "So it's not this, but this", it's absolutely coming off like you are looking for a gotcha. It looks like you're trying to make it look like these things are mutually exclusive when they are, instead, very much related, and then trying to make people's reasons for not liking this seem inconsistent. I mean, I'm not even sure how to interpret your comment when you lead with "So it's not about ______, but ______" as anything other than trying to point out an inconsistency that isn't there.

It seems like the "artistic vision" argument only holds water if you believe that someone else (the artists here) agrees with your vision of their work. That they would reject, say, preferring visual fidelity (even if generative) over source accuracy, to the point that it's not a possibility worth consideration. If a dev picked the technology because they thought it gave them a leg up or solved a problem they couldn't solve, is the argument that they're not a true artist? That they must have compromised themselves? Or is it only bad when a corporation does it? Because if so, boy, do I have a long list of worse corporate decisions happening right now in the gamedev world than "this demoed feature that most people can't even use sucks".

We've seen on social media the amount of artists coming out against it, along with others going to outlets to anonymously comment. I think it's more on you to prove your odd idea that a bunch of artists want this, given the rather massive backlash we've had against it.

And while we can talk about how bad other decisions may or may not be, the amount of power sucked up into Generative AI, allowing it to make our games look way more homogenized for... honestly, no real visual value is pretty up there. We can talk about lootboxes and microtransactions, but God help me if "We're using the environment-destroying technology to yassify all your games, and in the process of doing this we're making both the requirements much higher and also the ability to upgrade your computer much harder, so maybe it's time to start game-streaming from our service instead" to be a pretty bad thing. We're only at the beginning of it, but I think it absolutely should be in the discussion.

And all this handwringing about artistic vision being compromised over the use of a tool is to never mind that consumers can vote with their wallets, this is about the right kind of art?

This misses how corporations and monopolization can force people to integrate things into their lives. I mean, my God, we are in the middle of the massive AI push right now. How many things have been force-integrated with AI, where I have to go in and turn it off? A bunch. Acting like "This is something you won't use", but that misses that without calling it out hard, they will continue to push and push on it. There's a reason "enshitification" is a thing.

And calling it "handwringing" over artistic vision misses the amount of actually devs have called it out on their own social media. The people here looking at it can refer to company press releases all they want, but the idea that it will affect artistic vision absolutely rings true to the artistic community.

I actually think the tech used on faces here looks like crap and I said so up front. I actually agree with a lot of the visual analysis in the scraps of a demo we've seen. I think Digital Foundry looks like absolute clowns in all of this. I'd never buy a game based on this feature. I certainly have no reason to respect a single word that dribbles out of Jensen Hueng's mouth as lead snake-oil bottle producer. But to be this angry about a tool --- a demo of a tool to use optionally in the future --- under the pretense of "artistic vision" does not stand up to any scrutiny as far as I'm concerned, other than the pretense being a better excuse than "I don't like this and I'm very angry online about it".

No, I think it's right to be angry about a tool. It's a tool that sucks up stolen data, it's something that will soak up dev time trying to make it work instead of doing something more productive, it feeds into the corporate idea that there are easy ways out of making good games and thus reinforcing the idea that they don't need all these programmers and artists here... It's just making everything worse. These sorts of tools don't exist in a vacuum, but in the context of the environment they are in and the one they will also create. If anything, I think that is the biggest risk and threat that DLSS5 creates: that it is going to further the wrecking of the gaming market, hurt the job market for game designers, and fuel even worse corporate stupidity.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Well, if people can't afford it anyway, then you're not going to see many games rely on this feature.
They need people buying their games, after all.
Heck, it might be cheaper to simply disable the feature for the developers so they don't need to deal with people complaining about bugs and issues. Which in turns means that nVidia will keep working on it if they think they can make it cheaper or better, or abandon it.

Of course, it is supposed to run on a single card, it's still in development. But even then, a 5090 isn't exactly standard issue.

I think this is the wrong way to look at it. People don't make features with the intent that they won't be used. They integrate them and push them to get usage, otherwise why are you spending money on them? Just look at what we are getting with AI. And NVidia certainly has the power to do this, given how much of a monopoly they have on the GPU market.

If people can't afford to use the feature, they'll start to push people into other routes, perhaps even trying to minimize ways where you wouldn't use it before. Game streaming feels like the obvious answer, which feels like something that is going to get pushed harder and harder as the AI crunch on GPUs, RAM, and SSDs hit both PC and console gamers. I can absolutely see the push towards people streaming games with this sort of resource-intensive tech.

 

[bsss]

We've seen on social media the amount of artists coming out against it, along with others going to outlets to anonymously comment. I think it's more on you to prove your odd idea that a bunch of artists want this, given the rather massive backlash we've had against it.

I make no such claim, only that it it could be an artistic choice to use it. If there is an artistic backlash against its use and no one ships the feature, then great, approximately everyone agreed it was a bad tool. It doesn't matter either way to me what choices devs and artists make here, as...

How many things have been force-integrated with AI, where I have to go in and turn it off? A bunch. Acting like "This is something you won't use", but that misses that without calling it out hard, they will continue to push and push on it.

When Jensen and the game devs that use DLSS 5 take away gen AI-less video games and compel me to play theirs, I will apologize for not seeing the writing on the wall that I'd become forcefully subject to gen AI content.

No, I think it's right to be angry about a tool. It's a tool that sucks up stolen data, it's something that will soak up dev time trying to make it work instead of doing something more productive, it feeds into the corporate idea that there are easy ways out of making good games and thus reinforcing the idea that they don't need all these programmers and artists here... It's just making everything worse.

Be angry at the people*, those making the tool and using the tool, if you want. Being angry at the tool's existence is pointless.

*: just noting, in general and not accusing anyone, don't be the kind of angry where you send death threats, because apparently that's happening because of all of this, which is also ridiculous to me.