data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/14f05/14f058017fb2e7d1c5d3f56c842c1d4c666590a0" alt="Doom vs duke nukem"
That's not an exaggeration either, that's an honest assessment after spending hundreds and hundreds of hours playing games with both engines. You are talking about different art styles, not engines.Īnd while the Build engine had a lot of additional features like the ability to interact with different parts of the environment, more sprite animation frames, and the ability to overlay sectors(all to be expected, since it's a few years younger, which meant a WORLD of difference in the mid 90's), this does not take away from the fact that's it's still prone to probably 10x as many glitches as id Tech 1. Effects like explosions look much better, and the levels often appear to be more complicated.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/eafaf/eafaf5d6b06f689d940bfdea3903e23a01605265" alt="doom vs duke nukem doom vs duke nukem"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/84857/8485756e808b6dc114ce60ea83083481cc49ca56" alt="doom vs duke nukem doom vs duke nukem"
While Doom is probably more famous, the engine used to make Doom and Heretic still looks pretty bad compared to the engine used to make Duke Nukem 3D and Blood.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/14f05/14f058017fb2e7d1c5d3f56c842c1d4c666590a0" alt="Doom vs duke nukem"