Are you kidding me? Rebel Strike had nowhere near the scale of Halo 2. Nowhere near. I started withh GC last gen, it was lasst gen I left Ninty. I finished Rogue leader on a chipped GC I bought to play US games cause I couldnt wait for UK release. I played Halo about 9 months after that, and was very clearly blown away at that time. The sheer size of the levels, structures and draw distance was clear. RS2 RL wwas a fligt sim that wile looked good clearly lacked any sort of scale comparison to Halo.

How the fuck did they go from that article, which says nothing I can find about the power of the Wii U compared to the HD twins, to saying "wii u graphics are on part with ps3, maybe better"?

Is this really a huge negative biased twist the media just pulled?

You are wrong. Rebel Strike pushed 20 million polygons at 60 FPS with fully bump mapped characters, high level lighting effects, accurately mapped, detailed dynamic shadows, dozens of enemies diverse enemies on screen at once that had there on A.I. with a draw distance scaled more than ever multiplayer map in Halo 2 combined.

The best that any game on the Xbox did was 12 million polygons at 30 FPS with a few moderate effects.

These are facts, not opinions.

The devs tried to port it to Xbox but it couldn't run it without severe downgrades, so they scrapped it.

Just look at the shadows that the wings casts on themselves.

http://cubemedia.ign.com/cube/image/roguesquadron3_073003_02_640w.jpg

How the fuck did they go from that article, which says nothing I can find about the power of the Wii U compared to the HD twins, to saying "wii u graphics are on part with ps3, maybe better"?

Is this really a huge negative biased twist the media just pulled?

Do you even know what power the GC and Xbox had?

GC =

CPU - 486 mhz powerpc.

43 mb non unified memory, 24 mb mosys 1t ram.

GPU - 164 mhz flipper. 648 Mpixels/sec & 648 Mtexels/sec

Xbox =

CPU - 32 bit 733mz Pentium 3

64 mb unified ddr sdram runinng in dual channel.

GPU - 233 mhz custom Geforce 3 TI500. 932 Mpixels/sec & 1864 Mtexels/sec.

Of course a dev couldnt get RS3 to run on Xbox could they. ROFL.

Oh and games couldd have a larger scale on Xbox due  to loading info to the HDD to allow drawing data from there instead of the disc. Hence why Halo 2 was so massive in scale.

ROFL.

Half Life 2 was only possible on Xbox last gen. Which also is arguably the best visuals last gen for console.

People take raw numbers and give you all sorts of conlusions, but the real world results always tell an entirely different story. Microsoft claimed the Xbox1 could push 120mil polygons but that was a peak max in an empty environment with nothing else running and no framerate given. The most ever gotten in a real game was 12 million at 30fps.

The first thing I usually see when someone is comparing the Xbox1 to the GC or even the Wii is a copy and past of the clock speeds with no understanding of the cycle rate differences between the PowerPC and the Pentium or any technicle aspects. They see a higher number on the Xbox1 and immediatley conclude that it is stronger as an absolute fact. Ever since the AMD and PowerPC processors came into existence, clock speed has been little more than a measurement of how much electricity it takes for your CPU to do something, not how well it can do it. That is another issue though.

Do you even know what power the GC and Xbox had?

GC =

CPU - 486 mhz powerpc.

43 mb non unified memory, 24 mb mosys 1t ram.

GPU - 164 mhz flipper. 648 Mpixels/sec & 648 Mtexels/sec

Xbox =

CPU - 32 bit 733mz Pentium 3

64 mb unified ddr sdram runinng in dual channel.

GPU - 233 mhz custom Geforce 3 TI500. 932 Mpixels/sec & 1864 Mtexels/sec.

Of course a dev couldnt get RS3 to run on Xbox could they. ROFL.

Oh and games couldd have a larger scale on Xbox due  to loading info to the HDD to allow drawing data from there instead of the disc. Hence why Halo 2 was so massive in scale.

ROFL.

Half Life 2 was only possible on Xbox last gen. Which also is arguably the best visuals last gen for console.

Man, this is sad...I just got through discussing guy that do what you just did.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=146094&page=16

Please learn something about tech before you make yourslef look like one who is vastly lacking in knowledge again.

The devs who made Doom 3 said it would have run fine on the GC, but it didn't have enough storage compacity. It is the sam ewith Half Life 2. It had nothing to do with power.

Are you serious?

First you state RS3 RS wouldnt run on the factually more powerful Xbox. Thats a fact. Its figures in EVERY category prove it.

2nd You try and tecnically compare a game where Ai is weak at best, and uses FMV for background scenes as IGN's review article will tell you. To a game where you have massive sprawling 3d worlds, what many consider the best AI of its generation and loads of different realtime lighhtsources. Its a known fact that Halo pointed the way for huge levels and worlds due to the HDD being in the Xbox to. Something no other console could do last gen.

The GC had factually inferior power to Xbox.  FACT. Not opinion. Read the specs above.