You're viewing a single thread.
Looks nice but I kinda lowkey kinda despise this technology acting as a substitute for optimized graphics rendering. It’s gonna be necessary for full raytracing but idk it still just rubs me the wrong way
I genuinely don't understand this sentiment.
What makes a DLSS frame so different from a native frame? It's all just running code to turn math into pixels.
The only thing that matters is the end result to our human eyeballs, not how we get there. DLSS (and the other options to varying degrees) has gotten so good it looks better than native, especially when in motion.
Its never gonna look perfect and you get shitty performance in the game if ypu dont have an nvidia card, that supports it.
This sucks for all the potential customers who doesnt have a supported card.
Im one of them
I would rather see an optimized game.
How can a game like doom eternal get 200 fps and on the same hardware cyberpunk gets like 60 (im just throwing numbers out there but generally doom eternal can get decent fps on anything)
Theres a clear lack of focus by the cyberpunk devs, IMO.
you can't compare an open world game with a more linear first person. there's different performance profiles.
compared to the unreal engine, red engine does open world games pretty well without traversal slowdown or shader complication
2077 is larger, more NPCs, vehicles, more complex materials and geometry, human NPCs have higher bar for fidelity than monsters.
It's a nice way of future proofing imho. Someone buying the game on a budget card five years from now will see a prettier game than one running it on a good card today.
As long as the game runs okay now, which Cyberpunk failed at. But in principle I'm all for it.
If only we could have this AND a well optimized game for really great frame rates.
yeah it often seems like execs are just slapping on dlss as a bandaid instead of letting devs properly optimize their games
it's a tool that can be used and misused.
cyberpunk noted by digital foundry is actually a scalable game