Authenticity in imagery is a hot topic right now. To be fair, it was a hot topic yesterday, and it will be a hot topic tomorrow, too. Seldom are emotions stirred up so quickly as when someone does something "people" do not like with visual media.
The latest controversy is, of course, NVIDIA. In a recent presentation, they showed before-and-after images of a scaled-up game. It showcased a process where the image isn't just upscaled, but actively manipulated—essentially utilizing generative asset reconstruction to hallucinate new lighting and details onto an in-game asset on the fly.
Naturally, when something blows up on the Internet, every opinion imaginable pops up. The loudest naysayers dislike the technology because it's "not authentic" or "destroys" the original artistic vision.
Artistic vision is authenticity
When a creator establishes the aesthetics of a game, they are the arbiters of that vision. They painstakingly create something under their own creative license. To the public, that original work becomes the "authentic" baseline. If someone—or something—takes that vision and manipulates it, the derivative work is often considered a worse rendition. Well, unless it's subjectively better, of course.
Sometimes original works are remastered by human hands and deemed "better than the original." When this occurs, you rarely see tantrums on the Internet. People just agree, which doesn't generate as many headlines or engagement.
Take Karl Urban's Dredd, for instance. He might never get to make a sequel, even though a massive chunk of the audience prefers his gritty take over Sylvester Stallone's original. To an entire generation, the reinterpretation was superior. And this is where the core truth of the debate lies: often, "authenticity" is simply a code word for "the version I saw first."
Weren't we discussing manipulation here?
Whether it's a human director rebooting a franchise or an algorithm reconstructing a texture, remediation always triggers a strange subjective hierarchy.
If you make a song, and a sample of it is used in a new track that becomes wildly popular, the broader audience doesn't care about authenticity. They care about the entertainment value. The audience only raises the "authenticity" flag if they feel something nefarious happened. They’ll probably still listen to the track, but there will be a vocal movement against the sampled artwork if it feels stolen.
But NVIDIA has no creative vision at all, they're just distorting things
True, an algorithm doesn't have a creative soul—but some people are going to enjoy the visual output anyway, whether you like it or not. The crucial detail here is agency: this is a technology that you, as a consumer, can simply switch on or off.
The argument that NVIDIA has no creative vision for these reimagined aesthetics is valid, but something fundamentally different occurs when something like DLSS5 is applied. It acts as a real-time, automated remake.
People are going to hate it when a beloved, recognizable asset is reinterpreted. If the digital appearance of Harrison Ford turns into a completely different persona, or a classic character suddenly looks off-model, it will infuriate fans. But what about generic-looking NPCs?
Face makeovers are controversial, no matter the medium
Digital makeup functions much like real makeup. Look at Instagram filters or any tech that alters appearance—people call that out, too.
There's a prevailing trend that "natural" is beautiful and more authentic. But the moment someone's natural genetics make them look "less approachable," society flips the switch, praising the alteration as a "glow-up" or improvement. Just don't apply too much makeup, or use it to look generic. The backlash really begins when AI pushes faces into the "uncanny valley of perfection"—that homogenized, hyper-sexualized "Instagram Face" that strips away human texture. Unless, of course, a specific audience happens to love that exact look, in which case it sells perfectly fine.
Trying to accommodate everyone's taste is a nightmare. "Authenticity" is praised as "being real," but only if that reality corresponds to a highly curated standard.
Notice how nobody really cares if the AI makes rocks, skies, or pavement lighting look better? What people are really upset about is the appearance of digital people.
"It looks like AI slop"
If an upscaled face starts corresponding to the regurgitated, doll-like patterns we've seen from recent AI models, it will obviously make things worse for certain audiences.
Some DLSS-rendered faces look like they were pulled straight from Black Desert Online. It’s an artificial aesthetic that definitely clashes with Western purist preferences. Yet, certain demographics from other parts of the world are extremely drawn to exactly that look.
These discussions are fascinating because they are cyclical. We will have them time and time again whenever technology touches the aesthetics of human appearance.
But ultimately, we fight over the "soul" of a digital character while forgetting that the soul was always just a collection of shaders and polygons. If the algorithm adds a layer of digital lipstick you don't like, just remember: in the world of retro-future tech, the most powerful tool isn't the algorithm—it's the 'Off' button. With the flick of a switch, you can enjoy your original graphics, and whoosh, your character looks exactly the way the creators intended.
