mmm again motion tells better story than bullshots.

I'm almost certain you are mixing polys/frame in some games with polys/second in other games.

There is no way that Rogue 3 is 20 million per frame, the game runs at 60fps, that would be 1.2 billion polys/second.  The initial conservative estimates for the GC put performance at about 12 million/sec, conservative certainly, but not out by a factor of 100.

Furthermore the only number I found for Lair was a quote of 134 million polygons for the whole stage/level, again, not per frame.

Agreed on the main point though, using polys per frame or per second as a metric of performance in this day and age is rather redundant.

Hold on.

ROFL. I know why I hate talking in numbers.

Its not per frame. Its all per second.

110k polys/ per second GC Mario Sunshine

380k polys/ per second 360 Virtua Fighter 5

3 mill polys/ per second 360 Lost Planet

4 mill polys/ per second 360 Dead Rising

20 mill polys/ per second GC Rogue 3          developer Factor 5

134 mill + polys/ per second ps3 Lair           developer Factor 5

Like I said interestingly Factor 5 love high polys. But never produce the best visuals of a generation. Lair is rediculously high. But  Rogue 3 was for its time.

kljesta64just made the biggest selfown ever. Posting a GC pic with a Xbox controller is awesome in a GC vs Xbox topic.

Wow, highly compressed youtube video captured through RCA cables  ... Thats "fair" ...

The Wii did not provide any graphical enhancements of Gamecube games but allowed for far better image capture: (removed because were actually from emulator) here are some progressive scan captures I found

Edit: And you can see just how unfair your video is simply by looking at the "licensed by Nintendo" and "Produced By Namco" at the beginning ... Highly pixelated text that looks like it was run through a vasoline filter

Why are we comparing current gen's graphics to last gen's? Did miss something?

If it was to prove that polygon count does not make the best looking game then... DUH?!?

Artstyle aside, Xbox was the most capable overall followed by GC then PS2. But one of my fav last gen was F-Zero... I also liked Burnout 4 Revenge's graphics and speed on Xbox.

Heres a tip for you. GC through its normal cables into a TV looks  blurry as hell compared to HD output or Emulation.

Doing what you are doing is making the image look way clearer than it ever appeared on anyones TV's at 480p. Although the image res your posting is the same, there is alot of colour filtration enhancements and the image shows more aliasing rather than the GC's actual  blurr tecniques similar to N64 but not as bad.

Any still image is way exaggerated especially when taken via emulator through pc or Wii downloadable titles where image clarity is cleaned up.

Soul Calibur 2 looked best on Xbox. And no its not neear VF5. I own both and run Xbox 1 through an HDMI cable. The best possible image from last gen possible. Textures are lifeless, scenery doesnt bounce light in realtime and the character animation appears stiff. All in comparison to this generation of course. Other notices are no volumetric fog last gen as well as different colour shades of light. Gradual change per surface.

no one is saying that doesnt look better, but that theres no enough improvement to justify a generation leap

Those images were captured on the Gamecube using its component cables ... The other images I deleted because they were slightly cleaner.

Beyond that, I wasn't claiming the Gamecube was on par with next generation consoles, just that Virtua Fighter 5 wasn't that impressive of a next generation game. Like many fighting games it was (probably) designed to run at a steady 60fps regardless of what effects happened on screen, its geometry was (probably) only double what we saw in previous generation games, and the primary graphical improvements were from increased texture resolution, better lighting effects and increased resolution.

On average, good looking XBox, PS2, and Gamecube games had 200,000 to 400,000 polygons per frame and ran at 30 to 60fps; usually with higher detailed games running at lower framerates and lower detailedgames running at higher framerates. At the beginning of the generation some developers claimed to be getting 1 Million polygons per frame on the XBox 360 (Quake 4) and I suspect that between 750,000 and 1,250,000 is probably fairly typical for impressive XBox 360 games.

Virtua Fighter 5 (probably) doesn't approach "typical" XBox 360 games because it was designed around the Sega Lindbergh arcade board, which was significantly less powerful than either the XBox 360 or PS3, and needed to be rendered at a full 720p@60fps (probably with significant anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering); in other words, on lesser hardware it had to have a better frame-rate and higher resolution than the vast majority of XBox 360 or PS3 titles.

i said i made a mistake and that xbox version was just a GC port..i made my point in earlier posts.