I have to say, the visual impact of this technology is quite dramatic. I agree that the ambient occlusion and smaller shadows look greatly improved. However, I have my reservations on the lighting aspect, which is what produces the greatest visual impact.
My concern is that lighting is a large part of atmosphere and art direction that is now being to a larger extent handed over to AI. You say that this is mitigated by some "levers" developers can move to change the impact, but I do not think that any such large overhaul to a lighting system in a game can accurately retain the artistic vision of the director and the art team.
A parallel can be drawn to GBC emulation — on modern screens the colours are often oversaturated due to the original developers having to compensate for the screen technology of the time. So which one is the artist's intent? Obviously, the image produced on the original hardware, since that is what was used as reference during development on how the games should look. Similarly, artists for modern games use the rendering technology that is available to them to create and adjust the image they have in their head. When this technology undergoes a change as drastic as seen in DLSS 5, it runs the risk of overcompensating for changes done to align with the vision when viewed through the lens of the old renderer. It also risks revealing details and flaws that were not visible using the old renderer, and as such, not taken into account by the art team when creating the models and materials. All this might result in end presentation that is far from what the art director etc originally envisioned.
Lastly, simply because the developer includes a technology like DLSS 5 in their game, does not necessarily mean it aligns with their vision. Oftentimes such decisions are not beholden to the opinions of the art team and are made by the higher ups in an effort to make the studio more "forward looking" and in step with technology, which can be seen as positive by investors and shareholders.
P.S.
It seems that a lot of the comments and feedback on this topic is more reactionary than constructive. I wish you the best in surviving this heated controversy.
Comments 1
Re: Nvidia's new DLSS 5 Brings Photo-Realistic Lighting To RTX 50-Series
I have to say, the visual impact of this technology is quite dramatic. I agree that the ambient occlusion and smaller shadows look greatly improved. However, I have my reservations on the lighting aspect, which is what produces the greatest visual impact.
My concern is that lighting is a large part of atmosphere and art direction that is now being to a larger extent handed over to AI. You say that this is mitigated by some "levers" developers can move to change the impact, but I do not think that any such large overhaul to a lighting system in a game can accurately retain the artistic vision of the director and the art team.
A parallel can be drawn to GBC emulation — on modern screens the colours are often oversaturated due to the original developers having to compensate for the screen technology of the time. So which one is the artist's intent? Obviously, the image produced on the original hardware, since that is what was used as reference during development on how the games should look. Similarly, artists for modern games use the rendering technology that is available to them to create and adjust the image they have in their head. When this technology undergoes a change as drastic as seen in DLSS 5, it runs the risk of overcompensating for changes done to align with the vision when viewed through the lens of the old renderer. It also risks revealing details and flaws that were not visible using the old renderer, and as such, not taken into account by the art team when creating the models and materials. All this might result in end presentation that is far from what the art director etc originally envisioned.
Lastly, simply because the developer includes a technology like DLSS 5 in their game, does not necessarily mean it aligns with their vision. Oftentimes such decisions are not beholden to the opinions of the art team and are made by the higher ups in an effort to make the studio more "forward looking" and in step with technology, which can be seen as positive by investors and shareholders.
P.S.
It seems that a lot of the comments and feedback on this topic is more reactionary than constructive. I wish you the best in surviving this heated controversy.