>>5362927
Theoretically, but if you think that A), this will look good, and B), that you still won't have to do 80% of the work, You've Got Another Thing Coming.
We had a guy here who put in painstaking effort sculpting an entire monster into voxels, a minotaur, and in a sense it was neat, but he ran into the following problems:
>his whopping 200fps dropped down to like 80fps with just a couple dozen of these guys in a simple test level, imagine a comparable ratio based on your own average FPS, as well as how much it drops if there's a couple hundred of them in a real level
>GZDoom is the popular port right now that is capable of supporting voxels, and by supporting voxels, I mean that the .exe renders each voxel as an individual 1x1x1 polygon box, which is *grotesquely* inefficient, not helped by GZDoom kind of being married to its current way of using processing power and memory, which in 2019 is not a particularly optimal setup for certain tasks and circumstances already (but moving away from it isn't actually very realistic either)
>it took a shitload of time for him to do this
>it all looked fucking awkward in motion anyway
>it might have looked better if he put in the effort of animating his minotaur at 1 animation frame per tic, which might actually look really smooth and good, but that's a *shitload* more times the work than he had already spent so much time putting in, and all for just one monster
I think voxel rendering is a cool concept, but for Doom in particular, there's some substantial hurdles, especially if you want to do monsters, and I think some of these will translate to other games and engines.
For now, I think it can make some static (or mostly static) objects look pretty damn cool, but there's a lot of work and difficulty involved.