Lmao yeah alright that’s an unpopular opinion for sure, nice work!

Minimize uncanny yassification effects

Looking at the images they put out showing off the tech, it literally does the exact opposite of that. 🤨

Non-organic materials looked okay, but no more than other available lighting tech can do. The human faces, however, looked even more uncanny and “yassified” than the original.

i mean sure. in a vacuum it’s cool tech. but there’s so much immoral shit surrounding it that i can’t look at it in an unbiased way.

also, it made all the games shown look the same, because that’s what these diffusion models do. some of my favourite games are my faves because of their distinct art style. yes they can be tuned but there’s a baseline the models are trained on, and that looks to be “photorealism”.

Yeah, cuz fuck artists that invest months or years of their life developing game content. /s

If you wanna see reality in full form, go walk outside and touch grass. Maybe even meet a real human and possibly make a real friend along the way.

Fuck, this AI craze is gonna be the epitome of the term ‘starving artist’

The technology is fascinating; the business is infuriating.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s impressive tech, in the same way a catapult that can fling a minivan across a midsize country would be. That doesn’t make it useful tech. I can clap and say “ooh, aah”, but no part of me actually wants to use it. What I do want is higher and more stable framerates, better power efficiency (yes, really, this is something I care about), more immersive audio (both 2.0 and surround), and above all, games that I actually want to play to begin with.

But you have to murder a baby giraffe with your bare hands each time it generates content. So at 120fps that’s a lot of giraffes…

Basically “let me hand wave away the main issue that people with have it, by just throwing out that “developers will be able to find tune it””.

What are you basing that on bud?

Meanwhile, I’m playing a game from like 2007 because I just finished the fourth Mass Effect game and I just want more BioWare RPG, so I’m going back to Dragon Age. Which I never played before, but somehow I got for free (probably Games With Gold). So yeah I’m playing this game that just looks like ass, and I can’t even say I like the story, but something about it speaks to me.

Something about Xbox 360 era games that looked like ass, they were actually a lot of fun to play.

I thought I was for DLSS 5, but the more I hear about it, the more I’m not a fan. But I’m really not a fan of a lot of forward trends in gaming. Fortunately, there are a lot of classics I haven’t played. And one does not simply play the Mass Effect Trilogy once. Gotta play as a male paragon, a female renegade, a male renegade… there are options. With 4 it’s just “oh I guess I’ll play a guy to hear his lines… maybe”. So yeah, I foresee many replays of the Shepard trilogy.

Never seen someone misunderstand something so completely.

Therefore, fantastic unpopular opinion.

It improves video games in the same way that motion smoothing “improves” movies. There’s no mental gymnastics involved here- the point of art is to tell a story or convey a message from one or a team of humans to one or a group of other humans. This tech erases the myriad choices that artists make and instead reduces it all to a “better” mean. And all of that’s without addressing the subtle misogyny of how it treats the faces of characters who it perceives as women vs men. It’s your right to like this shitty tech because you care more about leather jacket texture than you do about engaging with the artistic work of others, but those of us objecting, I can assure you, are not missing out on “progress.” If I want to see leather jacket texture, I’ll go look in my closet. 🙄

I agree that the tech is very impressive. To paraphrase another comment I made in a post about the tech reveal video (which apparently was also unpopular based on the number of downvotes) I think many people are completely misunderstanding how it works. It doesn’t change textures or 3d models (what are often called game ‘assets’) at all. The only thing it changes is lighting and for that it does use AI (machine learning) to create a much more realistic lighting presentation. The notion that it sexifies or slopifies everything by making faces sexier etc is just not true except to the extent that the lighting changes have this perceived effect on the characters for you.

That said, concerns about artistic intent vs these changes are definitely valid here for these demos since it’s a very different look to how the original devs intended and Nvidia have basically modded this into existing games which weren’t designed around it to show it off. This has the affect of some of it looking a bit off I agree. In the future, when devs can decide to create assets around it or not I think those concerns will become less relevant. That said, PC power users and modders will likely hack it into a game if they want to even if the devs don’t enable it as an option. Modding and hacks are just the nature of PC gaming though. I don’t see a bunch of people crying about artistic intent because someone modded Thomas the Tank Engine into a game etc.

Nah, i’ll pass, real people put enough effort into the game to make it as good as it is and putting some fake filter over their work is disrespectful.

Apart from the ethical implications to the environment and developers, the ugly look of it, and that almost nobody wants it, they ran two 5090s to run the demo. That’s well out of the price range for most people even if stock were available. They’ve wasted resources on this instead of improving their existing shortcomings, and that’s a slap in the face to Nvidia users.