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

TwoSix · 2026-03-18T13:36:21+0000

trappedslider said:
you know the DLSS 5 on makes the NPCs actually look better imo

At least with the extra lighting, my 47 year old eyes can see the bad cinematography.

Mustrum_Ridcully · 2026-03-18T13:56:55+0000

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.

Paul Farquhar · 2026-03-18T14:03:37+0000

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
That seems more like "That's all we can do with what we have right now, it's good enough".

And that’s the thing - it’s a video game, it meant to move about and do stuff, it’s not meant to be a portrait to hang on the wall and admire. How good does it need to be when the gamer is only intended to give it a passing glance?

bsss · 2026-03-18T14:21:36+0000

The other thing I'll add to (or reiterate in) this discussion is that it's not like Nvidia is going to Kool-Aid Man crash into every game's visuals at the driver level and crap up all the developers' artistic visions. It's a feature that games have to include, so if they don't like the results, they'll be perfectly free to just not bother with the feature.

Mustrum_Ridcully · 2026-03-18T14:25:27+0000

Paul Farquhar said:
And that’s the thing - it’s a video game, it meant to move about and do stuff, it’s not meant to be a portrait to hang on the wall and admire. How good does it need to be when the gamer is only intended to give it a passing glance?

8-bit graphics worked for a lot of gamers back in the day, but now the lot of gamers consists of a lot more people.

I totally would enjoy if faces were even more realistic. I think of a game like Cyberpunk 2077 which really had amazing facial details and animations and yes, it matters to have more details, it just improves immersion. But I also play The Last Spaceship, which has much, much, much simpler graphics. It all depends on what kind of game and audience we're talking about.

I would say though that the AI animation issues I mentioned would definitely worsen a game, even if you got the facial details then. But maybe we can have the one over the other with sufficient research or maybe it's just really good fine-tuning.

--

The argument of "artistic vision destroyed by AI" however seems weak to me. Back before ray-tracing became viable for consumer graphic cards, to make your artistic vision true, you needed to bake light and shadow into your scene, if you wanted a mirror somewhere, you needed some fancy setup to do it. The artists were working with the limitations they had and needed to accept that. Then ray-tracing suddenly allowed to render accurate light, shadows and reflections, even more so with path-tracing.
Thet ransition between the technologies can be frustrating - if you don't have the baked-in shadows and lights in your scenes anymore, people without the tech get a lot less than they used to. The artistic vision will likely only be realized on your machine with those features available.

And of course - games work on a variety of machines and with a variety of settings. Do you really think the "artistic vision" is achieved at every combination of settings available to you, you get the same one on X-Box 360, X-Box One, PS4, PS5, PC with GeForce 1070, Ge Force RTX 3060 and GeForce RTX 5090 on a TV screen, on a 4K monitor, with and without RTX and Path-Tracing, with and without HDR, on a OLED display or on a non-OLED display, with VR or without VR?
I am fairly certain if games are ever made with DLSS 5 in mind, the artists will configure it in a way that it still matches their "artistic vision" - or it won't, and they'll consider it an optional feature.

Gladius Legis · 2026-03-18T14:36:00+0000

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
I am fairly certain if games are ever made with DLSS 5 in mind, the artists will configure it in a way that it still matches their "artistic vision" - or it won't, and they'll consider it an optional feature.

Let's be real: what is FAR more likely to happen is that the studios (whether the devs of their own volition, or much more likely the suits in charge) will use DLSS 5 as a crutch, and development will cut down on the art side of things, render everything half-baked and let DLSS 5 fill in the details. And roughly 95% of future video games will all have that arbitrarily shiny AI slop look as a result.

Hope you're looking forward to it.

Mustrum_Ridcully · 2026-03-18T14:38:43+0000

Gladius Legis said:
Let's be real: what is FAR more likely to happen is that the studios (whether the devs of their own volition, or much more likely the suits in charge) will use DLSS 5 as a crutch, and development will cut down on the art side of things, render everything half-baked and let DLSS 5 fill in the details. And roughly 95% of future video games will all have that arbitrarily shiny AI slop look.

Hope you're looking forward to it.

And the studio that is cut down development cost relying on crutches would have delivered excellent work if it wasn't for that pesky DLSS? I doubt it.

I am looking forward to what the studios that have skilled artisans that care and have a nice budget can pull off with it.

Paul Farquhar · 2026-03-18T14:40:36+0000

Gladius Legis said:
Let's be real: what is FAR more likely to happen is that the studios (whether the devs of their own volition, or much more likely the suits in charge) will use DLSS 5 as a crutch, and development will cut down on the art side of things, render everything half-baked and let DLSS 5 fill in the details. And roughly 95% of future video games will all have that arbitrarily shiny AI slop look as a result.

Hope you're looking forward to it.

If it's good enough and cheep enough, people will buy it. If it's not good enough or not cheep enough, people won't buy it. Where is the problem?

Gladius Legis · 2026-03-18T14:52:19+0000

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
And the studio that is cut down development cost relying on crutches would have delivered excellent work if it wasn't for that pesky DLSS? I doubt it.

Excellent, maybe not. But at least they still have to put in the bare minimum effort.

With DLSS 5, they won't even be doing that much. And what's worse, with so many developers doing that all at once, everything is going to look the same. AI slop all around.

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
I am looking forward to what the studios that have skilled artisans that care and have a nice budget can pull off with it.

Even in THAT absolute best-case scenario, you're looking at the real possibility that DLSS 5 will be required for the ideal look to the game. And if you don't have a GPU that can use it (and not even because it's underpowered, but because it's, say, AMD), you're SOL.

Gladius Legis · 2026-03-18T14:53:56+0000

Paul Farquhar said:
If it's good enough and cheep enough, people will buy it. If it's not good enough or not cheep enough, people won't buy it. Where is the problem?

Let's be real: NVIDIA and other AI companies have clearly displayed that they're willing to force this stuff down our throats where we want it or not.