If you have even a passing interest in video games, you’ll likely have seen the latest AI controversy, which kicked off when NVIDIA unveiled its brand-new DLSS 5. This new tech will, in theory, give video games a noticeable graphics boost, but its use has left gamers and developers alike split. It’s just one such case of AI’s continued use in the gaming space.
NVIDIA describes DLSS 5 as “an AI-powered breakthrough in visual fidelity for games.” During the reveal, they showed off the “improvements” it can make to games like Starfield, Resident Evil Requiem, and Hogwarts Legacy. In one particularly unsettling example, Resident Evil Requiem star Grace Ashcroft becomes completely unrecognizable as the DLSS 5 filter does its job.
AI In Gaming Is Only Becoming More Prevalent
It’s been around for years
So, what exactly is DLSS 5? According to NVIDIA, this tech introduces a real-time neural rendering model that infuses pixels with photoreal lighting and materials. In theory, the end result is a new level of photorealistic graphics.
“Twenty-five years after NVIDIA invented the programmable shader, we are reinventing computer graphics once again,” said Jensen Huang, founder and CEO of NVIDIA. “DLSS 5 is the GPT moment for graphics — blending hand-crafted rendering with generative AI to deliver a dramatic leap in visual realism while preserving the control artists need for creative expression.”
You might ask yourself why so many gamers have a problem with the idea of better graphics, and it’s certainly important to note that not everyone has taken against DLSS 5. Just… the vast majority of gamers.
What’s the issue, then? For many, it boils down to artistic intent. In the examples NVIDIA showed off, the games all had the same slightly too-perfect sheen to them, a touch of uncanny valley about the faces of each character. Not every video game is designed to be photorealistic, so in many cases DLSS 5 would directly fly in the face of a specific art-style.
“Everything about this is a betrayal of these games’ artistry,” writes Suzi Hunter on Twitter. “Painting over hand-crafted intentional 3d art with shiny, wrinkly, sunken-in, porous, puckered, fraudulent filtered nonsense is deeply disrespectful. If you want this, just watch gen-ai videos all day.”
Synth Potato adds: “This looks horrifically bad, nobody wants an AI slop filter on top of their games.”
“I think most other people recognize that this resembles the plastic look of AI videos way too closely,” says BikeMan. They all have that samey looking, plastic sheen. It’s soulless.”
Of course, AI has been used in video games for years. It’s used to power NPCs and companions, it helps create adaptive difficulty in games like Resident Evil 4, and is often utilized in anti-cheat software to flag suspicious gameplay. The key difference between these kinds of AI and what NVIDIA is cooking with DLSS 5? Intent. Developers using AI is nothing new, and it’s always helped them make great games. But generative AI, which can create “new” content, is an infinitely thornier topic.
There are issues with generative AI, to be sure. Ethical arguments range from its environmental impact to the removal of the human experience from what’s being created. Despite these concerns, generative AI is and will continue to grow in the gaming space.
DLSS 5 is just one in a long line of examples. According to a report last year, nearly one in five games released on Steam last year used AI-generated content in some capacity. This might not always be in the game itself, but could have been used for concept art, dialogue, assets, or sound and music. It’s definitely safe to expect we’ll see the number of games using AI-generated content will grow in 2026 as tools develop and get smarter. One game released this month called Meet Claude was written, drawn, and coded entirely by Claude.
Elsewhere, ARC Raiders, a hugely popular new shooter, used generative AI for some of its voices after bringing in human actors to “train” it. It is worth noting, however, that it was recently announced ARC Raiders will be replacing the AI-generated voices with human actors.
“In an interview with GamesIndustry.biz, Embark Studios CEO Patrick Söderlund explained it was never the intention to “replace” humans.
“There is a quality difference,” he said. “A real professional actor is better than AI; that’s just how it is. We look at [AI] first and foremost as a production tool. We can test things internally. We can test 15 different lines without recording them, and then we know what to record. It’s also a way for us to work, not replace actors. We don’t necessarily believe in replacing humans with AI all the time.”
Herein lies the nuance: In an age of ballooning budgets and longer development times, generative AI is inevitable. There will continue to be backlash, and we should absolutely question the ethics of generative AI and its use in video games, but it is here to stay.