- cross-posted to:
- pcgaming@lemmy.ca
- cross-posted to:
- pcgaming@lemmy.ca
This was actually the sub-headline of the article but I thought was the more important party of the article.
Speaking with developers and artists at studios that have agreed to DLSS 5, including CAPCOM and Ubisoft, Insider Gaming was told that the DLSS 5 tech was revealed to them at the same time as everyone else.
“We found out at the same time as the public,” said one Ubisoft developer.
Developers at CAPCOM tell Insider Gaming that the announcement and the publisher’s involvement were particularly shocking, as CAPCOM has previously been historically very “anti-AI” with projects such as Resident Evil Requiem and other unannounced projects in development. Some at the publisher fear that the DLSS 5 announcement could prompt a change in the publisher’s view on generative AI and its implementation in its games.
You must log in or # to comment.
There was an interesting post that I was linked to on Reddit, supposedly from Assassins Creed dev.
I’ll quote it here:
"I been watching the fallout of the DLSS 5 video, and wanted to check in with with some game devs to check if I have been taking crazy pills, or if I have understood game dev incorrectly.
Games are not visuals, they are game mechanics and game loops skinned in visual interface. When we make games, we make all the things that work with our mechanism and loops, visually distinct and more importantly repeatable.
In assassins creed, all ledges that I can climb, look visually distinct from all other ledges. In most games, outlines and color is much more important, than what they look up close. They are used to identify what we are looking at, more than how realistic they look. These things are icons in the world, more than they are objects.
Light and Shadow are not just for visual pleasure, they are used to draw the eye towards objectives and where you should go.
In short, there is information in the visual representation of the game mechanics that are telling players what they should do and where they should go.
When I see video games processed through DLSS 5, I see stripped away game information, making games less playable, and more confusing. I could understand having this in a photo mode, but why on earth should we have this in any of our games, if we don’t know what it will change it to? Or if it even will remain consistent next time you look at it?
Will it remove the yellow paint on my assassins creed ledges, or perhaps only up-rez the rest of the assets, and make the yellow ledges stand out like a sore eye? Will it remove scars that are story relevant from an RPG Character? Will it smooth out a wall that is supposed to look like it can be destroyed? There are so many visual important things in games, that I know this thing won’t adhere to.
Did no one involved in making this video understand Game Design or Art Design?"
Will it smooth out a wall that is supposed to look like it can be destroyed?
Yeah, at the very least, it will throw a whole bunch of details into the general area, which will make it harder to tell what’s interactable.
We’ve had photorealistic games before, by taking literal photographs and using those as point-and-click levels. You practically don’t see that anymore these days, because not being able to tell what’s interactable was a major weakness.
Doesn’t mean that DLSS 5 or the like will strictly have the same problem, but it certainly feels like these companies are trying to throw in photorealism again, with no regards for the cost.
From my understanding, it may be possible to work around some of this, since the program is meant to hook into the game in a number of different ways. Its very possible that an “importance” mask could be added as in input, for example. This wouldn’t fix everything, but would still give a way to separate game elements from environmental details.
That said, theres been so much focus on how it looks. IMO, its completely overblown, especially when all of this needs to be manually configued on a game-by-game basis. Devs can tweak the settings to their own preferences, and make things more or less extreme.
The part thats much more worthwhile of mockery is the fact that they’re demoing a consumer product on professional grade hardware, during a hardware shortage. They couldn’t even get the demo working on a high-end gaming PC, and they think this tech is worth advertising? That is the funny part of all this.
Edit: This could change, but most of Nvidia’s marketing around developer control of output is currently bullshit. (See https://sh.itjust.works/comment/24367414)
That said, theres been so much focus on how it looks. IMO, its completely overblown, especially when all of this needs to be manually configued on a game-by-game basis. Devs can tweak the settings to their own preferences, and make things more or less extreme.
It’s wild that every defense of this bs is “Just have devs spend even more time finetuning for this.” Yes, let’s double (or more) the workload of artists and programmers that are already overworked and crunched beyond reason, all for a “feature” that looks like garbage in its showcase demo and that’s so resource intensive that very few users will be able to utilize it, if they even want to.
Its more an argument against the, “artisit’s intent” and “disrupting gameplay” points.
Yes, let’s double (or more) the workload of artists and programmers
Do you have any evidence for this? Given whats been shown, this seems relatively easy to implement on the game dev side.
Edit: The claim about doubling dev time was pulled out of the user’s ass. DLSS5 is (at least currently) literally just a filter on the already rendered frame. (See https://sh.itjust.works/comment/24367414)
Even if implementing it turns out to be trivial, testing art assets for quality and consistency will be a nightmare. Especially if the underlying generative AI isn’t deterministic.
Even if implementing it is trivial, it’s also still “one more thing”. Just like optimizing for the Steam Deck, considering features that might not be on the lowest-tier console release, accessibility requirements, and dozens of other checklist items that might go further and further down the list. Worse, if DLSS ends up interfering with those other checklist items after it’s already been verified.
Yes, but what the tech costs to implement has a huge impact on what it is, and how (or if) its ever implemented. So far as I can tell from my own research, the original commenter was lying, which makes sense. If it actually increased dev time that much, even Nvidia wouldn’t be stupid enough to try and sell it. “AI graphics costs $10 million dollars to implement, and has negligible impact on sales.” would not look good for their bubble.
Yes, depending on implementation details. I mean, its never going to be completely consistant, but I don’t expect these companies to mind a little brand damage if they get short-term boost in invest.
I’m more thinking that as it stands, the hardware requirements make it DOA for users. They’re saying they’ll improve it, although I have my doubts. That said, even if no one can run it, it may be popular among publishers for screenshots and marketing. On the other hand, if it does actually double dev costs, then it’ll be DOA even for corporate use.
Anyone who thinks DLSS 5 is a good thing doesn’t understand art. It’s just a filter that removes all artistic intention. Like taking someone else’s artwork, paint all over it, and then claim it’s ”better”.
That’s unfortunately a lot of people going by the amount of “fixed” (ie sloppified) art and photos I see going around online.
All those “filters” are preinstalled and pushed on the users. It’s kinda hard to fault them when they push the “make pretty” button, but I do take umbrage when my family members post pictures of “me” online that look like someone else. It’s a weird time to be alive.
I can fault them for choosing to push the button and for just accepting that the result is “pretty” without rebuke. For defending the end result against those of us criticizing it. The companies may be responsible for the pushed adoption of this ridiculousness, but people are the ones happily going along with it and actively defending it.
Also removes shadows
Gamers remove shadows all the fucking time by choice. My experience shows that 99% of gamers would willfully and happily play on the lowest settings with a 5090 because big fps matters more then actually getting any fucking value out of the hardware.
“Better” is in the eye of the beholder. DLSS 5 is optional, as are the shader and texture mods that are available for many games for ages. They both change the look of the game in ways the people creating them didn’t intend. I don’t really care about what the creators of games intended, I want to have fun playing it, and I’m okay with changing/modding the game until I have more fun. That is “better” to me.
DLSS5 probably doesn’t matter to me anyway, since the Nvidia together with their AI business centipedes actually don’t want to sell GPUs to consumers anymore.
(If you downvote, I would be really interested in hearing your argument. From my POV you either dislike people modding their game, or are a hypocrite. If it is about hating Nvidia and the current AI bubble, I’m with you there.)
That’s why only studio quality headphones are even worth listening to music on, if you’re not hearing exactly what was intended then it’s shit garbage. Too bad if you’re poor
This is kinda kinda a bad example, it’s more akin to listening to a bad cover of the original song. Also this tech sure as shit isn’t going to run on cheap hardware which makes it even more egregious.
No, because the original information is still there, it’s just filtered on top. Exactly like how listening to the same audio on different headphones can sound completely different.
Edit: Because a dip/rise in a certain frequency can completely change the sound of any individual element of sound.
If you put new information on top of a pixel, the pixel is changed and it is no longer the original information. Your headphones example would be more accurately applied to the visual medium as running custom color profiles, like adjusting saturation and contrast. The original information is there (music waveform or pixel color) but affected by delivery (bass boost or colorblind adjustments).
I’m not sure I understand the difference when DLSS is a toggle.
You made exactly my point in your last sentence.
The DLSS 5 effect is less like a different pair of headphones that don’t have a flat response and more like if your music player added AI generated instruments to the songs in your music library. I think that was what the previous poster was arguing (I agree with them).
Part of me wonders if it is internally consistent, or if Leon’s face changes just a little every time he pops up in a new scene in the new RE with DLSS on.
But it’s details not entire extra characters, so it’s literally not “adding instruments” it’s attempting to sharpen details based on prior frames values for various parts of the image.
You made exactly my point in your last sentence.
Then you didn’t understand it because that doesn’t apply to DLSS.
Low quality headphones don’t add sounds that doesn’t exist in the original track. The thing with DLSS is that it adds details that doesn’t exist in the original image.
It sure does take away and distort sounds, to the extent where it can sound very very different.
It takes away sounds, but don’t hallucinate new ones
Does that matter when all the arguments I’m seeing against it are “its not the original vision of the artist” as if most of the corporate garbage games had any soul to begin with?
The original vision is not the same, what can be changed are now all bad? I remember when people complained about games not having a way to disable bloom or chromatic abberation or whatever, that somehow wasn’t taking away from the “original artistic vision” but now we have to get out our pitchforks?
Imagine listening to a song you know, but the headphones keeps adding new instruments and sounds that doesn’t belong to it. It’s not consistent either. Every time you listen to the track it hallucinates new instruments. The artist were never part of these sounds.
That’s DLSS 5.
Adding insrruments would be more like if entire NPCs apear that weren’t there, it’s more like frequency expanding compressed/lossy audio.
mixing headphones aren’t expensive. industry standard headphones cost less than a lot of consumer grade headphones. don’t ask me to list examples but I’ll do it if you want
I mean I own a pair of sennheiser HD800, let’s compare audio quality.
But I’m obviously not saying it’s a good argument, I figured the sarcasm was evident, I think the “its not the original intention of the artist” argument is a bad one.
There are plenty of legitimate arguments against DLSS, such as companies not properly optimizing their games because they can just make it “good enough” and tell people to use DLSS. That is obviously bad.
Adjusting literally any of the many possible settings in a game “takes away from the original artistic vision” yet generally we see people complain if certain options to their taste/needs isn’t present.
deleted by creator
I wasn’t being serious, it’s sarcasm because the “artists origin vision” argument is dumb.
I wish all this money went to figuring out how to make games more fun
They just care about making money, and how they do that is making investors happy, and I guess more AI slop is what will make them jump around nowadays.
Gone are the days companies trying to make money by providing good services (well not all of them), They get us using the product and Make it shitty,
F$CK ensh^ttification :(
The vast majority of gamers can’t afford one 5090, let alone two.
The vast majority can’t afford a 50’nothin at this point.
That’s the point.
Then they’ll add more slop cores to their next generation of cards, and use that as their demo for how great their latest cards are.Their whole consumer business strategy since rtx has been to push the use of new rendering techniques that existing hardware is less capable of, while releasing new cards with dedicated cores designed specifically for their new techniques.
If they didn’t have rtx or dlss, people would still be using their 980 ti’s.
no corporation under capitalism, especially a multibillion dollar one like CAPCOM, is “Anti-AI.” GenAI is a get out of jail free card for doing what the games industry has done for years now, pushing more bloated, buggier, and blurrier games while charging more for it. it’s also great for devaluing human labour. even if it can’t replace it, doesn’t matter, that’s not the point. you lay off thousands of people, “replace their jobs with AI” and then when that inevitably doesn’t work you hire humans again for worse benefits and pay. this is enshittification, and it’s the natural process of capitalism.
Pffffttttahjahahahahahahah
Star Field is a great example of a game that has amazing, immersive visuals, but the crappiest gameplay imaginable. All style, no substance. In the end it makes for an overall still crappy experience.
I can’t think of a more fitting title to showcase this AI tech.
… What? Starfield is ugly and bland as hell
