Maybe I missed it but I thought I asked you to provide proof to what you say is that so hard?

Polygon count is not the only thing that makes games visually or technically impressive. Rebel Strike is one beautiful game yes, it still doesn't mean Xbox games don't do more on a technical level. Things like normal mapping, some particle effects, better framerate, higher resolution in some games, better shadowing, better lightning, more complex geometry etc... a lot of those effects can be seen on XB games that are not seen the same way on the competition.

You have to stop using Halo 1 as an example as to what XB was capable of. Try to be honest. I recon there are games on GC that are technically impressive, on par to what XB can do yes. On paper XB was more powerful and some games pushed it beyond what GC could. Splinter Cell Chaos Theory had particles effects, shadowing and lightning like only PC could do and/or surpass. Halo 2 with normal mapping (although it was hard on the system). No game had the anti aliasing of Team Ninja Games, Ninja Gaiden Black had no equal last gen. Doom 3 with it's shadowing and lightning. So stop with your ridiculous polygon count, it doesn't matter if you can't put more effects.

I know. That's why I said the PS2 best(big name exslusives in other words) vs the Gamecube's mediocre Cyrstal Chronicle slooked way better than FFXII. Twin Snakes looked way best than MGS3.

Shadow of the collossus...I've yet to see what everone found so great about it visually. It had really nice arstyle and design but on any technical leve, the environment were completely flat and empty with low res textures everywhere. All of the reousrces went into 3 things. The horse, the main character and whatever Collosus you were fighting at the time

Exactly how SotC look better than games on the Gamecube? I'm lost.

Of, we aren't here to determine what people like the most. We are trying to determine which was the most capable 6th gen console technically. So far, all facts still point to the GC

I don't know. I think MGS3 looks better than most of the GC library. The game really had so much going on screen at the same time (like individually rendered blades of grass, tons of trees, etc.), and the faces were incredibly detailed. They also continued to look damn impressive during extreme close-ups in the cinematics (which I'm assuming weren't FMV).

There are very few GC games I would say look better than MGS3.

Also, sorry for chopping your name. Not too familliar with this site.

surpass my ass, PC versions raped the xbox version 10 out of 10 =P xbox was literally the poor man's PC, it just happens that some games came out on it first so I had to get them on the xbox then get the PC version later lol.

MGS:TS didn't even look as good as 2, despite running on the same engine. What are you talking about?

Also, the thing I think most people find impressive is the sheer size and detail of the Colossi(?). It had an effect on performance as one may expect, but seriously I was more impressed that my PS2 wasn't exploding when one of the larger ones walked up-close to the screen. There really isn't anything of quite the same scale that I can think of comparing the Colossi to on the GC or Xbox, and I think that's what makes it so impressive.

I see where I may have been mistaken... I never thought console games could surpass PCs, what I meant was that only PCs could equal XB games and surpass them not that XB games could surpass PC games... sorry for the misunderstanding.

The problem is that the trade off of FPS was a big mood breaker for me in that game, I'm all good with the pretty and effects, but crappy FPS is generally a deal breaker, I keep telling myself to deal with it on consoles for the most part due to them being weaker but I get super pissed off if a game can't run 60+ FPS on my PC lol, like that mother fucker TERA with their shitty coding that drops me to 30FPS at times, it's like come on, you are using UE3, modified yes, but it's fucking UE3, and you even refuse to work with AMD to make crossfire work, fuck you Blue Hole! Off topic, anyways, if that thing ran at a constant 30FPS, sure, not the 60FPS that I want, even the 30FPS would have made me happy, but no, even most current gen console games can't do that shit properly, what shit.

The performance didn't seem that poor to me, but I do recall a few rare instances of frame drop while pushing aside grass. I'm also not used to 60FPS of course :P