This is embarrassingly poor journalism. It’s clear the author has a slider with Facts on the left, and Pandering on the right, and they’ve cranked it all the way to pandering.
They define “tone” as
lighting and, well, overall tone.
Clearly not familiar with the concept of high/low frequency details.
And I blame gamers, including the people in this thread. It reminds me of how conservatives label objective journalism as biased, so right wing news outlets just describe whatever reality the audience already lives in.
They’re strength sliders. It’s not like the entire frame is defined by DLSS. The artists make thousands of decisions when rendering the frame, and use DLSS’ sliders to determine how much interference is happening on high/low detail features. In most titles, this tuning is going to be dynamically adjusted at runtime based on what lighting phenomena are in the scene, so it’s not even like an artist is going to be hand tuning these. That’s not what they’re for.
The more I think about the comparison to right wing news the more apt it feels. The topic is very technical, and their audience is…well, a bunch of gamers. It’s not like they’re going to be able to convey useful info, but they still need to say something, because their audience has heard the term “DLSS 5” and expects something. So all they do is regurgitate useless pandering.
More like, as a rendering engineer, we’ve been dealing with vendor black boxes forever. It always sucks having control over our frame taken away, and then having to advocate for hardware level access to be able to do it ourselves so that actual innovation can happen. But DLSS isn’t new, and it isn’t defining our frame. Only end users who literally know nothing about what they’re talking about think this.
I don’t even know why I try. Sure, AI bad, art dead, all I play is AAA.
This is embarrassingly poor journalism. It’s clear the author has a slider with Facts on the left, and Pandering on the right, and they’ve cranked it all the way to pandering.
They define “tone” as
Clearly not familiar with the concept of high/low frequency details.
And I blame gamers, including the people in this thread. It reminds me of how conservatives label objective journalism as biased, so right wing news outlets just describe whatever reality the audience already lives in.
They’re strength sliders. It’s not like the entire frame is defined by DLSS. The artists make thousands of decisions when rendering the frame, and use DLSS’ sliders to determine how much interference is happening on high/low detail features. In most titles, this tuning is going to be dynamically adjusted at runtime based on what lighting phenomena are in the scene, so it’s not even like an artist is going to be hand tuning these. That’s not what they’re for.
The more I think about the comparison to right wing news the more apt it feels. The topic is very technical, and their audience is…well, a bunch of gamers. It’s not like they’re going to be able to convey useful info, but they still need to say something, because their audience has heard the term “DLSS 5” and expects something. So all they do is regurgitate useless pandering.
“Guys this AI stuff isn’t actually bad. And I’m just like you, look at me try to criticize right wing news. We’re so much alike”
More like, as a rendering engineer, we’ve been dealing with vendor black boxes forever. It always sucks having control over our frame taken away, and then having to advocate for hardware level access to be able to do it ourselves so that actual innovation can happen. But DLSS isn’t new, and it isn’t defining our frame. Only end users who literally know nothing about what they’re talking about think this.
I don’t even know why I try. Sure, AI bad, art dead, all I play is AAA.