Digital Clips heeft het eerste deel van zijn Unreal Tournament Demo en Q3Test vergelijking online gekieperd. Hieronder wat over de graphics comparison:
It’s extremely hard to compare the graphics of the two games, simply because each has their own advantages and disadvantages. Both engines support high-detail textures, transparency, mirrors, volumetric fog, colored lighting, and level-of-detail tessellation. However, one thing that UT doesn’t have, but Q3Test does have, are the famed curved surfaces.It’s almost indescribable, how the curved surfaces add to the realism and flow of the level. The Q3 demo shown by id Software at the Macworld '99 Expo a few months back featured seemingly organic surfaces, which pulsated and writhed with life. Of course, the demo level used never made it to Q3Test (due to gameplay slowdowns because of the complex curved surfaces), but it accurately demonstrated the potential of curved surfaces.
However, this is not to say that the graphics of Q3 completely trounce those of Unreal Tournament. Unreal Tournament features some extremely impressive fire animations (as seen in the original Unreal “flyby” demo), as well as lens flares, and fractal-generated textures. “Fractal-generated textures?”, you may ask. Walk up to a wall in Unreal Tournament, and you’ll see what I mean.
The weapon effects and animations in UT seem to be much better than those of Q3Test as well. Hardcore Q3Test-ers will say that this eyecandy slows the graphics down considerably, and detracts from the gaming experience. Hardcore UT-ers will say that it doesn’t affect the framerate at all anyway, and it adds significantly to the gaming experience. Which camp do you belong to? It all depends on a matter of personal preference.
Speed-wise (as in raw framerate) Q3Test feels slightly faster. It is fairly difficult to quantify this statement, mainly due to the lack of an intensive benchmarking scheme for either of the games, but the flow of graphics in Q3Test feels extremely fluid and smooth. Of course, at lower resolutions, there is absolutely no speed difference between the two, but at 1024 x 768 / 16-bit color (the resolution I play at), Q3Test simply feels faster.
In my personal opinion, I think that the graphics of Q3Test are better than those of UT, but only by a hairline. Had the UT engine been faster than the Q3Test engine, this may have very well been a toss-up.
:strip_exif()/i/1287225452.gif?f=fpa)