haha, what a bad way to come back, after I brought up the real reason for it.

You really should reply to Darc Requiem, who answered your question the most fully

who cares what team ninja said we know thats just not true.

those 2 pics are really interesting

you can see the differnces
like how textures on Halo are far lees varied and detailed
visual effects are also weaker
Halo had more expansive environments...and a lower framerate

Games that looked better last gen were on the GC

As a Sega fan I often wonder what Dreamcast games could have looked like if the system had lasted as long as the PS2 and developers had a chance to max it out. Games always look best by the end of the generations, but the Dreamcast got cut short. Shenmue 1 and 2 show what the Dreamcast could do out of the gate, but who knows what the limit could have been.

The GameCube really was a little beast visually.

It would've be interested if Nintendo opted to go with a $299.99 price point how much further they could've pushed the chip. It probably would've smoked the XBox.

$199.99 was a mistake because Nintendo found themselves having to cut the price over and over again without little benefit.

it was well known fact xbox was strongest console last gen so not sure why people keep arguing about gamecube being more stronger because it is lies and even devs can back it up

Let me say this once again today: The Xbox is still the most powerful game machine on the planet. Not only is this the greatest compliment that a software engineer can give to a piece of hardware, it is also a reflection of our appreciation of the Xbox for allowing us to run DOA3, DOAX, and now Ninja Gaiden with the quality that we, Team Ninja, hoped for.

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action/ninjagaiden/preview_6070870.html

My first thoughts were, what can we do with this game on Xbox that the other consoles couldn`t? So we focused on an increased number of polygons, multitexturing, and designs to exploit the hardware.

http://www.xbnmag.com/article2/0,4364,1268951,00.asp

The number of textures, visual effects and polygons we throw onto the screen would bring any other console to its knees. We really made the most of what the Xbox offers a game developer.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/news/news_story.php?id=96717

The hard drive for streaming, pixel shaders for some effects, and the raw power. It would not fit on a PlayStation and would change beyond recognition to fit the GameCube. It's not that we've been inefficient either; we're just asking a lot of the hardware, and the Xbox is the only one that can deliver.

http://www.xbox.com/en-us/polygon/20031027-2.htm

Both the GameCube and Xbox are clearly superior to the PS2 in terms of the quality of the graphics seen in games available today. The transition from PS2 to GameCube and/or Xbox is a fairly large leap, but going between GameCube and Xbox is a bit less dramatic.

http://anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.html?i=1566&p=14

Zane
a lie told a million times........

The XBox was more powerful, but the GameCube was a far more efficent design.

The XBox was a $400 worth of PC parts thrown together than MS sold at a big loss.

The GameCube was a $200 mini-monster. If Nintendo had given Art-X another $100 of budget to work with, it would've smoked the XBox.

Rogue Squadron II/III and Resident Evil 4 I still think are the two most impressive visual games from that generation.

Probably a good reason why MS dumped the XBox vendors and opted to choose IBM/AMD for the 360.

I hope thiis shuts up the unbelievable BS that Libro is coming out with.

Its a known fact among every developer and media that Xbox is the most powerful connsole for the 6th gen.