The future is DLSS Ultra Performance + Frame Generation

[Shampoo]

I am playing native 4K, 144 FPS, max settings, ray tracing powered by DLSS Ultra Performance, VRR performance, frame generation, it looks pretty impressive, as expected of the 4K resolution.

All of this on a mere RTX 4080, not even a top of the line GPU.

I still get drops to 10 FPS whenever I talk to the item shop owner and the quest giver and in cutscenes whenever it shows a completely different scene but that is to be expected this day and age.

The green dots that directs me to the objective are very pixelated, but that is fine.

Embrace DLSS Ultra Performance and Frame Generation, the future is here (until they fix the performance).

[DeathRow]

I dont get the whole framegen debacle, its all pixels coming from your computer either way

[Automator]

I would still consider a 4080 a top of the line GPU.

[Gabriel Angelos]

its a sad future - a future where ♥♥♥♥♥♥ developers make a game that looks like its 7 years old and runs like potato even when you use FG + DLSS Performance

[Khergit Horse Archer]

the future looks like a deep fried potato

[bipoqrlz]

Originally posted by DeathRow:

I dont get the whole framegen debacle, its all pixels coming from your computer either way

I get it if you're only able to raster 30fps. When you FG to 60, there's awful latency, as if your inputs are rubber banding. If you're able to hit minimum 50 fps though the technology is amazing.

[Gingen]

Once again people pushing this frame gen garbage. It is not the crutch you think it is. Unless you are stable above 60-70FPS, frame gen will break frame timings and have unusable frames. It doesn't matter if the number is high, it'll still feel like low FPS. I bet the majority of people pushing frame gen right now have never touched a monitor above 60Hz

[xavier434]

It's not a question about whether to hate or "embrace" frame generation. The concern surrounds the fact that the game industry is presently in a highly vulnerable state due to how expensive it is to develop AAA games. This is for a lot of reasons that I will not go into in this post.

The worry is that publishers and shareholders will lean on Frame Generation as a way to cut development costs rather than to genuinely improve the user experience. What this looks like in practice is to further reduce the amount development time that is normally allocated towards optimization and using Frame Generation as a crutch/replacement.

At that point, turning frame generation on/off is no longer a realistic choice. It becomes much closer to a requirement and it comes with all of the graphical issues, blurry looks, and input lag that many users experience regularly. This is not good for consumers no matter one slices it.

What is good for consumers is releasing an optimized game where frame gen is both optional and often beneficial when paired with strong enough hardware, but too many AAA publishers and especially shareholders could care less about that so long as the title sells enough copies.

[hotaru251]

Originally posted by DeathRow:

I dont get the whole framegen debacle, its all pixels coming from your computer either way

Framegen was to help get more frames when you didn't "need" them.

Nvidia & AMD both stated they do not advise using framegen if you cant do 30 fps w/o it as its going to be bad.

Framegen "smooths" out visual look but it NEEDS frames to work with and if you have too few its goign to be issue.

That is the issue with Wilds wanting you to use FG when you cant get enoguh base frames as its not going to be fun.

Devs just abuse the tech provided (same way they did with dlss) in what was meant to help the low end hardware being used as shortcuts to avoid optimizing game and just brute force it.

FG itself is not bad just how many devs sue it is bad.

[Streylok]

Originally posted by Gingen:

Once again people pushing this frame gen garbage. It is not the crutch you think it is. Unless you are stable above 60-70FPS, frame gen will break frame timings and have unusable frames. It doesn't matter if the number is high, it'll still feel like low FPS. I bet the majority of people pushing frame gen right now have never touched a monitor above 60Hz

Another person that doesnt understand tech at all but not surprising coming from a weeb

[Edelgris]

If you can't run a game natively at +80 frames, you shouldn't use frame gen. Most people don't understand that. It's not the solution that you think it is. It's nothing more than frosting on a cake. You can't make a good cake with just frosting.

[xavier434]

Originally posted by Edelgris:

If you can't run a game natively at +80 frames, you shouldn't use frame gen. Most people don't understand that. It's not the solution that you think it is. It's nothing more than frosting on a cake. You can't make a good cake with just frosting.

+80 isn't necessary. It is more like +50, but that aside you are correct in general.

With that said, there is nothing "wrong" with users giving it a try anyways to see if they find the experience more enjoyable. The real issue is what I described in my post above where users expect that their $70 is purchasing them an optimized game when the reality is that it is being held up by the frame gen crutch due to cutting costs.

No one should want this to become the trend in the industry. It does nothing positive for any gamer regardless of one's opinion about Frame Gen. It is worth speaking out against while simultaneously recognizing the potential benefits when used properly by devs/publishers.

[Manuel]

the future is blurry
good old days remember game like battlefield 3 (2011)