It s hillarious that amd console owners think they will get this tech anyway.
Every argument I've seen against it is purely emotional, none of them are technical.
People complained about ray tracing when it first came out. Today it's the industry standard and nobody complains anymore (maybe console gamers and AMD GPU users).
And about "artistic intent", isn't this also messing with the "artistic intent?" Because this looks far away from the original intended art.
nah we already have plenty of games that do photorealistic graphics with real life actors. Our brains dont reject them because they are done well. Starfield and Zora AI humans look wrong for the same reason day time Soap Opera looks off. No one wants to play real life.That, but also I think the issue is that virtual humans are just not cut out for attempts at photorealism. As we're edging closer to that, it's creating this uncanny valley effect that audiences aren't comfortable with. DLSS5 could be as far away from slop as it could be, and I imagine a lot of people would still be repulsed.
I think chasing photorealism is fine in game environments as our minds are not trained to spot when a shadow doesn't cast just the right way. That's why rasterization tricks have gotten us so far. But our minds are trained (probably through evolution) to spot and warn when a person or creature doesn't look right.
I think this is why Rockstar are still leaning into their characters looking just stylized and 'videogame-y' enough so that they step past the uncanny valley.
I think nvidia engineers have kinda misread the market here. This is currently happening at every major tech firm so im not surprised that the execs and engineers at nvidia are also in their own little bubble.
Here is the thing, gamers largely praised games that went with a photorealistic art styles and character models. Hellblade 2, Matrix and Marvel 1943 were roundly praised by the same people showing an absolute disdain over this. I still think it's largely due to the AI faces completely missing the original lighting pass resembling Sora AI videos than the original game. But it's still a valid concern that apparently nvidia engineers and marketing guys were completely oblivious to.
The examples below showcase that people are enamored with photorealism in video games. This is possible on a 10 tflops card. We are going to 30-40 tflops cards next year. We can easily get to photorealism organically without taking any shortcuts. I think Nvidia just didnt realize that we had to get there ourselves.
You didn't address my point but I understand what you mean. I think it is important to dissect what people mean by graphics & art, they're already struggling to separate games with photorealistic art VS what they deem as "art", which is any game that doesn't emulate real-life.Nah, this is just bad graphics done by developers who clearly dont give a shit about character models looking good during gameplay. You can easily fix this with hero lighting. We dont need an AI pass to fix stuff like this.
This is what Grace's model looks like in model viewer. It looks nothing like what the Nvidia AI model's interpretation. Or rather hallucination.
I thought I did address your point. You said that they dont have control over Grace looking like that in the raster version. They do. They just chose not to. They arent the only ones, we have talked about it ad nauseum in this thread. TLOU1 Remake discussion in this very thread pretty much revolved around the characters looking like dogshit during gameplay.
She still looks a porcellain doll compared to the best a ps4 can offerNah, this is just bad graphics done by developers who clearly dont give a shit about character models looking good during gameplay. You can easily fix this with hero lighting. We dont need an AI pass to fix stuff like this.
This is what Grace's model looks like in model viewer. It looks nothing like what the Nvidia AI model's interpretation. Or rather hallucination.
