By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
sc94597 4 days ago
Edit Thread
Otter said:

I don't think we should get too caught on the semantics. We can look at it more holistically at what is happening, and what people are finding issue with.

A game designed with a specific character & look in mind is changed drastically, not just in quality but in tone and personality. Capcom has super talented teams, if they wanted Grace to look like the DLSS 5 example, that would be way more evident especially in the cutscenes and pre-rendered art and even in-game with intentional shading/texturing etc. That is simply not the case.  

The characteristics brought out are specific to this  DLSS 5 experiment and it is removed from what was up until that point established by the art team and accepted by the audience.

It doesn't actually matter who is at the helm of the change, the fact still remains true. This isn't unique to DLSS 5 either, some recent examples include Windwaker HD where the advanced lighting and bloom completely alters the toon/cell shading effect. It is simply against the outcome of the original art direction regardless of whether Nintendo gave it the green light or not. I actually like both (WWHD & OG) but its absolutely fair criticism. And this happens a lot, remasters often mess up art direction.

This is made especially worse in this case because its not a remaster with all the internality that goes into that, but instead a broadbrush AI tool trained on who knows what... It gives people the "the ick". Developer input doesn't negate this and so far they all have a fairly similar "AI" look. The Grace example is the focus here but it just reflects a wider concern with the technology.

Fundementally this particular argument shouldn't be confusing to anyone. It should be very clear to anyone who is looking at that image or who has played that game and built a relationship with that character. This doesn't dictate whether we have to like it or not, but simply this is what people are reacting to and more the spirit of  the "artist intention" argument.

I don't think asking about whose intent is the authoritative intent or if there even is one authoritative intent in collective enterprise is just semantics. It's a meaningful question that identifies a meaningful complexity. The point of considering artistic intent is that you are considering all that goes into a final product and the full inherited context thereof from the artist(s). Identifying who they are is important. 

If the issue is instead one of artistic cohesion or consistency, then that is an entirely different argument, and I think one less supported than even the intent one. This game looks drastically different depending on which render settings you play in the current version: no-RT vs. RT vs. PT. I've experienced this first hand playing on a 5090 vs. SW2, right after each-other. 

And you can even see how the real in-game model differs from concept art, in each of those rendering contexts. 

She is drawn with quite more angular/contoured features here than in the final game model, where her features are more rounded and "younger", as an example of one difference. 

The following image is not fundamentally any more distinctive than what we've seen above. 

Whose artistic intent matters here? The concept artist's? The 3D modelers'? The producers'? In reality, this is a product of collective force, the mixed labor of many people, and you're always going to get some inconsistencies unless the team is running a very tight, and rigid ship where all decisions are centralized. 

I also don't agree that DLSS 5 is doing the same thing in every image, and think that is something people are saying without any real evidence. It wouldn't make sense from a technology perspective where deep neural networks are very sensitive to inputs.