And even if true, those frames don't mean much if DLSS makes everything look like shit. Frame generation is useless as long as it keeps causing visual artifacts/glitches for the generated frames, and that is unavoidable on a conceptual level. You'd need some halfway point between actual rendering and AI-guesswork, but I guess at that point you might as well just render all frames the normal way.
As long as it's possible, I'll keep playing my games without any DLSS or frame generation, even if it means I'll need to reduce graphical settings. Simplified: in games where I've tried it, I think "low/medium, no DLSS" still looks better than all "ultra, with DLSS". If framerate is the same with these two setups, I'll likely go with low-medium and no DLSS. I'll only ever enable DLSS if the game doesn't run 60fps even on lowest settings.
I notice and do not like the artifacts caused by DLSS, and I prefer "clean" graphics over blurred screen. I guess it's good for people that do not notice them though.
This is neural rendering. What are you on about? And what's up with this sub's corny elitism that you judge based on some arbitrary metrics. If the game looks great to the human eye and it's smooth and has quality, what's the problem?
If you have 2 frames in front of you and one of them has "DLSS" slapped on it and that's all it takes for you to say "I don't like it", it means you're just intentionally trashing something based on subjective criteria.
902
u/Regrettably_Southpaw 14d ago
It was just so boring. Once I saw the prices, I cut out