I think they took this to heart
this post was submitted on 16 Mar 2026
163 points (93.6% liked)
PC Gaming
14324 readers
565 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Problem with gritty post-apocalyptic grim-dark games is that not enough people have Mar-a-Lago face and stage lighting.
There are men out there with so little connections to real women who truly think that a girl should always wear makeup, regardless of time and circumstances.
-
Angry at women for not doing up hair/makeup daily
-
Thinks hair/makeup is a trap to trick men into treating you like a human being
You get both from the same chud online influencers
Games should have a setting that toggles between real textures to whatever is on the right
It should be a toggle between:
"Real textures" - "I think women are objects"
I mean, I don't think this current tech does anything to materially objectify the subject (any more than the original). What it does is to smooth and brighten certain artifacts.
That might genuinely be a benefit in a game with poorly rendered models or bad lighting inherent to the game. But Resident Evil doesn't have this problem. They made an explicit choice in setting the scene as dirty, cloudy, and grim. This modeling reversed that for everything, not just the lady bits. You're going to have zombies and Scagdead and Lickers all brightened up and polished.
That might genuinely be a benefit in a game with poorly rendered models
No.
As for the rest, yes.
I'm suing you for the brain damage I got by looking at this
if it helps, iirc the image on the right was made in a circlejerk subreddit making fun of chuds, but then it got taken seriously by real chuds on twitter
Incels should never be hired for anything involving women.
Why use AI to generate a frame every 8.3ms when you can just pay a person to generate a frame every 8.3ms, ez.
AI bros are so stupid.
Tried it with an old Simpsons game. The result is amazing!
Also, they had this running on two 5090's in a SLAI mode.
So not only will they be shitting all over the game designers and artists design with AI slop, you'll have to buy two top of the line cards for the privilege to have that slop served to you.
ETA: it's also two top of the line cards that are massively increased in price due to AI slop.
I read that as "two slop of the line cards" and I'm not even mad about it. I think it works.
That is what they were doing for this test but that is not what will be required to run this once it releases. At least, that's what they're saying now
Are novideo even making 5090s anymore?
I'm so glad that the GDP of a medium-sized country has gone into turning up the contrast on some videogames a little bit
Ah, yes, because shiny graphics that require the absolute peak of expensive gaming GPUs is totally going to get people to take out a mortgage to look at the incredible post-processed details that change every time you look at them. \s
No way this is real! Right?
Sadly, it’s real. Direct from Nvidia: https://nvidianews.nvidia.com/news/nvidia-dlss-5-delivers-ai-powered-breakthrough-in-visual-fidelity-for-games
load more comments
(1 replies)
Slop: The work is not handcrafted, therefore it is slop. Especially if the results are not natural that fits the game or has problems. Or do you think the artist goes through each result and adjusts it? No? Then it is slop by definition.
Insanely impressive that it’s able to do that in real time.
Not at all, tiktok does the same on a phone...
If it's doing it on the video, yeah, though I'm sure they're using the absolute best hardware available.
But it would be a lot more effective to run it on the flat texture assets themselves.
Dual 5099’s so probably standard on more mid range GPUs in a few more generations.
It's going to be interesting to see what and when it generates detectable artifacts. Reminds me of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKCyk3CeUFY
~~Isn't this just upscaling?~~
edit: No. It really isn't.
No, its a stylistic filter. Like turning an image into an oil painting filter as a comparison, not just upscaling the resolution.
Upscaling is supposed to look like the same thing at a higher resolution, whereas this is specifically making a point about looking different
Before people start going braindead circlejerk, the way it's working is by changing lighting only, it isn't changing geometry, making about 90% of the memes people are replying with wrong. Basically works best with games that have high resolution raytracing modes (like Cyberpunk) and on PC rigs people can no longer really afford.
Then again, it's literally in the title, I don't think there's any way my comment can fix this level of circlejerk. I dunno, "Ugh, say thing i no lik" so go ahead and downvote and reply with your strawmans ...
If the picture in the article is a true real representative of DLSS5, the hair texture is obviously different and has been changed. The DLSS5 picture even has a slightly different hairstyle.
I think you think you are making an argument, but the hair is the best example. The strands haven't been changed a bit, all the unique curls, all there. Generative AI would have changed that big time. You might be getting confused by some of the shots like the Starfield ones, that have been taken from different frames (look at the person in the background).
I've actually just been corrected, this was referred to employ some form of generative AI by Jensen. It's also significantly different enough to what I generally thought of as AI slop and my issues with it that it could also be said that I am a supporter of generative AI now. I am surprised by the application of the label, but it does prove me wrong.
I'd suggest taking a look at the comparisons on Nvidia's website, because it really makes it obvious how much this is changing things https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/news/dlss5-breakthrough-in-visual-fidelity-for-games/
If we look at the one that's in the article thumbnail, the blonde woman in Resident Evil, you can see it has made significant changes to her face: her eyes are bigger and the outside corners of them have been moved up, and her lips are much fuller
Edit: also it straight up changes the skin colour of the black football player in an orange shirt, and that's presumably meant to be a representation of a specific real person. It's not even a lighting change either, because the shirt is the exact same colour. It's only his skin that changes
Not only have I done that, I overlayed one image on top of the other in GIMP to test it out with the opacity slider. Her eyes are not bigger, and the corners have not been moved up. The overlay is perfect, and transitions perfectly. I think that what you are referring to is the optical illusion of the eyes appearing to get "bigger" when they get brighter, but if you say, place it around a fixed reference, it is clear they remain the same size.
Regarding the football player, if you look at the entire scene, there's a dark tone applied to everything, including the soccer ball. It seems to make dark scenes brighter and outdoor scenes darker. Having said that, I agree, the filter does exaggerate the skin color of the football player, but that's what it alters, the lighting and material properties. There's even a point where you can place the bar that the transition is seamless enough that it appears to be the same shot of the face. To test whether this was the case, I put it into GIMP, and using just the brightness slider tried to see whether I could make the colors match just from changing the brightness - and I could.
What I actually found more interesting is that in every other example, even the clothing folds remained the same - this is the only example where the folds in the clothing seem to change. Looking at the background, there's also some evidence it's not the same frame. I doubt it's from a material change, it's just that they are really one frame apart.
Without using GIMP, you can also take the football player, anyone of them, and zoom close up. Make a note of every features in their face, because it is preserved, if exaggerated.
but if you say, place it around a fixed reference, it is clear they remain the same size.
You are working with different frames, and you are also flickering between them as opposed to using the opacity slider, which makes it difficult to see how the brightness and material effects are being altered between the two. All you need to do is gradually shift the opacity layer from the top layer once you've aligned them. You are actually working with the source images while I just down and dirty snipped it, gonna try getting the source image of the side by side comparison from the same frame and see if the higher definition makes a difference. I would make it a streamable, but I have no experience doing it.
Yeah, just tried it out. The ones actually from the same frame are pretty low res in comparison, but the high res ones you are choosing are from different frames, so even if you align them using the pupil as a reference, zooming out shows just how uneven they are due to minor shifts in position. Unfortunately, that means having to resort to the lower resolution alternative.
Smooth fades with the brightness upped for visibility: left eye, right eye, lips
Here are the source images for you: DLSS off and DLSS on
Streamable is just a video uploading site, you can put any video file on there for free (though it will be deleted after a while). I used OBS to screen-record, it's free and fairly simple
Yep, got it to work (hardest part was the cropping): https://streamable.com/j0ryqe
Your images are coming from different frames. If you go to the YouTube link, you can see where they were copied from and how the idle animation distorts them. Unfortunately, they've only included the intro clip to the video as a side by side of the same frame. Here is your example, zoomed out - it was never going to match: https://imgur.com/a/vRu1Xxa
Your images are coming from different frames
I mean, they're the images that Nvidia chose to present as the comparison, but watching the video I do not see her eyes and lips growing like that in the idle animation
Imgur isn't available in the UK, I'm afraid
With all due respect, I don't think this shows what you think it shows. Here is that exact video downloaded, zoomed in, and brightened to clarify it: https://streamable.com/hpxx37
That's ok, I can paste what you were trying to compare here:
I'm not seeing the relevance of your new video. This filter manipulates brightness and material at a pixel level, which my video shows at several. At the level of focus you are trying to show, there are still material differences being applied, like how light bounces of off the skin, eye, and lips, and the filter is working over detail that I already warned you the only frames that could be compared against each other are lacking.
My video already shows it applying well enough, but if try to zoom up to the pixels in an image that does not have the quality to show what it's parting from and ignore what's happening on the quality that can be made it, it certainly can be argued into a different story.
I think my example already does a decent job at showing that this isn't just the typical image generation AI, so I'm afraid we'll have to disagree from here on out, as I don't think either can make the example to each other any more clearer. Regardless, if you are as interested as I am on this, it will be something true experts go over and point out when it gets released.
That's ok, I can paste what you were trying to compare here
Are you trying to say that the because the frames have differently-shaped facial features, my argument that the filter changed the shapes of facial features is wrong? If not, what are you saying?
I'm not seeing the relevance of your new video.
To show that even at the lower resolution, the eyes and lips are still changing shape
I'm not talking about texturing details or lighting. I'm talking about her eyes and lips being different shapes and sizes.
It's been nice so far, thanks for the examples and the conversation. I don't think there's much more to add. Even though you want to keep discussing it, I feel like I'd be repeating myself just to reach an impasse. Have a good day!
Likewise
DLSS 5 fundamentals are based on a new real-time neural rendering model that greatly ramps up photorealism in games by combining "photoreal lighting" and lifelike materials.
It’s also effecting materials, such as the skin on her face in the example. Materials includes the textures applied to or generated by them.
I assume material as in https://dev.epicgames.com/documentation/en-us/unreal-engine/unreal-engine-material-properties , except at the pixel level.
Hope you like slop in your slop
What does this even mean?
DLSS applies upscaling to video games. So, even if we buy the "call anything made by AI 'slop'" meme then wouldn't the headline be 'Hope you like slop in your video games'?
Some people are so anti-AI-brained that they don't even make sense. I'm just picturing the OP going back and forth trying to wedge the word 'clanker' in there somewhere but giving up and posting this nonsense instead.
Slop in slop = AI textures fed into DLSS
First fake frames, now fake textures
That's...it. You just didn't get it, my man...
Edit: idk why I expect the pc gaming community to be reasonable, my bad
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›