Very right, but your take also insinuates that 360 capability is not far greater then what we are already seeing which is one of the points in the article. 

Great visuals = small levels and few characters.
Big levels lots of characters = not so great visuals. 

Is that the future 360 developers delima ? 

I want to take a second to address the topic -- rather than the article.

Both do beg the same question -- What does Microsoft do after Halo 3?

Also, how much more sales are there out there for this game?

Before anyone jumps me ... there is reason to ask this.

The first-day attach US rate for Halo 3 was about 35.8%.

This was calculated as follows: The $170M first-day sales by 65 to generate the number of units sold (approximately 2.615 million). (And I have checked and it appears that the $170M was the US only).

The number of Xbox 360 units listed as sold through in North America (used as a proxy for US sales) Sept. 16 on VGChartz was increased with another week and a half of sales. The weekly sales figure was estimated to be 17 percent above the prior week -- the same growth experienced between Sept. 9 and Sept. 16. .The result was another 155K or so units to the 7.15 million to bring total sales to 7.302 million.

Why is this important? The US attach rate for the original Halo was 31% on the original Xbox. The US attach rate for Halo 2 was 41%.

An attach rate for Halo 3 the same as Halo 2 would mean another 438K in sales, bringing the total to roughly 3.1 million. Plus another two copies or so of the game for every five consoles sold.

Of course, this will probably change as Microsoft sells some 360s. (But how many is anyone's guess. Gartner analyst Van Baker said 500K to 1M units more than otherwise would be sold ... but from his previous analysis, he appears to be biased against one one of the non-360 consoles, so it is unknown how accurate this estimate might be).

Nevertheless, it is telling how many people already have the game.

Hummm, did not like the read, Seems like it has a lean on the ps3.... No facts stated was a major flaw.

.. it only killed 360s by giving a good ton of them RRODs.

Actually the last sentence is true, developers say that porting from the PS3 to 360 is easier and more efficient then 360 to PS3.

To the guy that said xbox games never went far beyond Halo1, have you played Halo2 it is 100x better, HL2, doom3 all looked great on the original xbox. These games look better then games on the wii. And even some of the crap original games on the 360.

The big point of the article seems to be it that the 360 near its capability aready.

 And i agree that it is, thats just from all the 360 games i have seen nothing looks to be really pushing the boundries.

Looks to me like another guy who thinks graphics are everything and buys the line that the PS3 is 'future proof.'

I don't buy for a moment that the full potential of any of this generation's machines has been tapped.

I'll raise my hand as one of the "that article is awful" people. It's just huge leaps of logic based on vague and unproven statements. There's just too much to try and pull it apart piece by piece though.

No, not necessarily. My point is that in this point of the 360 development cycle, compromises will be made. After all, those games are Irrational's, Bungie's, and Epic's first shot at the 360. Can they all do better next time around? Absolutely. Should Halo 3 look a little better than it did? Absolutely. From Bungie's perspective, it sounds like they sacrificed a lot for the lighting model they used in H3. After playing the game, that doesn't surprise me. The lighting is absolutely gorgeous. But some of the character models definitely needed work, especially the Admiral and whats-her-face (not Cortana).

The 360 has plenty more to tap out of the CPU and GPU. Maybe not to the extent of the PS3, but there's definitely room for growth. Expect UT3 to look better than Gears because Epic is more familiar with the architecture. Expect BioShock 2 to look better, etc. etc. etc.

Basically, after Legend pointed out that the guy who wrote the article gave Lair an 8.9, we should all disregard everything that person has to say from this point forward. Not a single rational person I have ever met had Lair even pegged as a decent game, much less a good one. And that jackhole gave it a great game rating.