DLSS isn't trained on a game-by-game basis. You can only finetune settings for your specific implementation for your specific game but not much more than that.
Seeing how most DL stuff works it’s safe to guess that they have a base model trained on a lot of data from many games and then they finetune with some data from newer games, or maybe they train every new version of the model with the data of all supported games. Regardless of the approach, the fact is the model won’t have seen any data from Starfield so specific issues might show up. Probably not that noticeable, though, if you say that Skyrim looks fine with it.
Even if you're a Bethesda fan, you know damn well it's going to need dozens of mods that won't exist for months after the game's launch. The idea of D1P or pre-ordering a Bethesda game is fucking ridiculous.
Even bigger lmao.
I played Fallout 4 on launch and it was fine. Fallout 4 is still Fallout 4, in all its bullet spongy glory, but I don't think bugs were my problem.
That's a risk, but you literally can't know until it's out. Todd did talk about clearly segmenting generated and handmade content, and I'm willing to trust him, I think their designers have it in their mind to know that they shouldn't put it as part of the core gameplay loop.
Very good point. Also worth mentioning that Fallout 4 received a solid "survival mode" that is my favorite way to play the game, and it made the settlements system useful and rewarding to engage with rather than a superfluous time waster. It would be nice if Starfield has a similar mode that asks the player to engage with mechanics that might otherwise feel tacked-on, like some of the procedural and base-building stuff could be.
Not at all. I am playing, and enjoying Baldur's Gate III. I will buy Starfield in one year.
It's not free performance. You are sacrificing quality for higher frame rates, which is a retard move. Don't buy a high resolution monitor if you're too much of a poorfag to afford a GPU that can run it at the native resolution.
People have been sacrificing quality for higher frame rates since the dawn of 3D rendering. What makes an upscaler bad in this instance?
There's effectively zero IQ impact compared to native at 4K, it literally is free performance because you're already upscaling from such a high base resolution. At 1440p the better upscalers offer free effectively performance at higher settings. There's benefits to a higher resolution display beyond just gaming, and somebody might play their older titles at a higher resolution or supersampled, and newer ones with an upscaler or lower than native.
Compared to most developer TAA implementations? It is. MSAA is just bruteforcing image quality instead of being smart about it, good modern TAA and the upscalers beat it while being more efficient.
I had an rx580 from AMD when I bought BG3, then this week my brother gave me his "old" Nvidia 3070. The performance difference is massive, and if I turn DLSS on, its even better with no apparent fidelity impact. Compared to BG3's implementation of AMD's FSR, its night and day, with FSR on I had significant ghosting problems.
