This is especially apparent and a major downgrade on war thunder because you need to be able to see player tanks and aircraft in the distance which ends up being like 3 pixels on your screen which DLSS will make invisible lol.
There are definitely some games that benefit from this, but the inconsistency is still enough that its not really useful for FPS and Multiplayer games where even the slightest change on your screen can dramatically affect your gameplay. A sharp 60fps is much preferable to an AI generated 120 fps which may remove detail and accuracy.
Most AAA games have been so shitty lately that calling something “AAA” these days is almost like saying a bad word.
Gods, the amount of disappointments I’m glad I didn’t waste money on. The biggest spending I’ve done on gaming lately is buying myself a Steam Deck. Now I’m enjoying my backlog of indies I got from Humble Monthly.
Friendly tip: For singleplayer games, you can always disable the game’s built in AA solution and use reshade for AA instead. If you have extra GPU power you can also use reshade to add all sorts of other graphical effects if you’re willing to fiddle around with things to get it looking good.
If you have an NVidia card, sometimes PCGamingWiki has instructions for tweaks you can do in Profile Inspector to adjust how the driver applies AA to a game too.
Same. Honestly my eyes aren’t good enough to notice a difference between 1080p and 1440p (or 4k) at the scale of my pc monitor, but I damn sure notice a difference between 60 fps and 200 fps…
Glad it works for you. Since I upgraded to a 1440p monitor (I still have the same GPU) I went from comfortable high-ultra settings to mid-high settings + FSR Quality in more demanding titles. From the games I played in both 1080p and 1440p, I’d say that less GPU-intensive titles definitely look better in high-res, but I found the overall experience quite whelming.
Simply playing on a higher res monitor won’t necessarily give you better visuals if you don’t have the GPU power to match settings, however at that point it’s not “higher res = better visuals” but “more powerful PC = better visuals” which, duh, of course it will look better.
Have you actually tried 4k though? Yes, framerates are lower, but boy does it look better. For me, and it’s that’s just my take on it, 1080p ends at 24" monitors.
I’ll be completely honest, that’s probably the coldest take someone can make about recent tech that I’ve seen, and it’s being presented as a hot take.
Virtually everyone prefers native, almost aggressively so. That being said, I think there’s important nuance that’s missing in most talks about upscaling. In my testing, my experience of blurring and smearing with upscaling/frame gen seems to be hugely dependent on pixel density. If you get a really dense screen, then upscaling, in my experience at least, becomes virtually undetectable even at 1080p.
probably the coldest take someone can make about recent tech that I’ve seen, and it’s being presented as a hot take
That’s exactly what the “we have you surrounded” meme template conveys (at least according to my understanding): a popular opinion, but ironically presented as a fringe opinion.
So no, this isn’t really intended this as a “hot take”, there seems to be a decent amount of people who dislike TAA for example. I’m pointing out a trend in the industry, that devs are using temporal or upscaling tools to make the game run/look better, and GPU vendors support those tools to squeeze out the most fps from their cards. At this point TAA is the standard AA method and is integral to how some games are rendered, and upscaling is advertised as basically free* performance. Unfortunately, by its nature, all this temporal tech doesn’t work too well at low framerates and resolutions, a scenario where it would be very useful.
I would agree that most artifacts and the softening effects of upscaling will be less visible on higher density screens, or when you’re sitting further away from a screen. Unless your TAA/upscaling implementation is absolutely botched, in which case it will always looks garbage, but that’s not really the fault of a specific technology.
Solution is to not play modern AAA garbage. For the $40-50 pricetag, I could get a handful of great indie games off my wishlist. Games that won’t bat an eye at an aging GPU.
They would make a lot more money if they made games run on older hardware. Most people can’t play cities skylines 2. Most people can’t play kerbal space program 2. We don’t want photorealistic graphics. Just give us fallout 3 era graphics because thats good enough. Fuck.
I agree in theory but Fallout 3 is a horrible example, the art direction was the epitome of the era’s fascination with bland brown and sickening green landscapes.
The answer here is to ask if photorealism matters to the game or not, if another type of art direction suits better then do that. Hell, look at Boltgun or even just games that used contrast and bold colors to their advantage like Halo 3 or Mass Effect 2.
lemmy.dbzer0.com
Gorące