- 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.
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.