Nothing in there is accurate? Really? Tell me then, do you think the PS2 or Gamecube could have even remotely ran games like Half Life 2, Morrowind and Doom 3 without completely butchering them in the process?
The Xbox ports were completely butchered mess' that ran at horrible framerates, so yes I do think the GC probably could have come close to that. It would have taken extensive re-working of the engine but it would be doable in a playable form. The Xbox had the advantage of using DirectX as it's API, not that it was some monster box of supreme power. In some ways the GC was better than it, and in other ways the Xbox was better than the GC.
iD Software went on record to say that porting Doom 3 would have been completely impossible to do on any other console without totally ruining it.
This was more in reference to the heavy use of programmable pixel and vertex shaders if I remember right. Which was one advantage the Xbox had over the PS2 and GC, which was that it had some very early programmable pixel and vertex shaders. Though the GC's TEV, while not the same, could be used to achieve very similar effects.
Do you also think the fact that the Xbox was underutilized by third parties is inaccurate?
Yes I do think it's highly inaccurate. The Xbox brought a lot of PC developers familiar with those chips and DirectX to the console space. This wasn't exotic hardware they were working on, the same way the PS2 or the GC were. The Xbox had an X86 CPU, and an Nvidia GPU. Out of the GC and the Xbox, the Xbox BY FAR got more utilized and more of it's "juices" wrung out. You want to talk about something that was highly underutilized you talk about the GC's TEV.
Considering how big of a difference there was in the Splinter Cell series and exclusives but not much else, I think it's 100% accurate to say that it was underutilized.
Well I completely disagree. Exclusives are where consoles are going to be utilized best. It's not in multiplatform releases. Besides the fact that as has been stated in here that most multiplatforms ran best on the Xbox. The Xbox had more exclusives pushing it's chips than the GC did. You want to talk difference of graphical quality look at RE4 on the GC, or the Rogue Squadron games and all the tons of PS2 ports.
Fact is, the Gamecube was a lot closer to the PS2 than it was to the Xbox, hence the reason it got a PS2 port and not an Xbox port of Splinter Cell, and you have nothing that can even attempt to prove otherwise besides a shitty little remark like that. If you're going to call me out, make sure to back your opinion up with something resembling a fact because I sure have and you haven't given shit.
No that is not a fact actually, just cause you say somethings a fact doesn't make it so. The GC and Xbox were closer in power overall than either of them were to the PS2. While the Xbox had some advantages coming from a PC mind and using DirectX, the GC still had some advantages over it. One thing they really got right with the GC chip was it's ability to render 8 textures per pass, compared to the PS2's whopping ONE, and the Xbox's 4. You also had developers pulling off bump mapping on the GC, and obviously on Xbox. On PS2 only Matrix: Path of Neo ever claimed to use any kind of bump mapping and looking at screen shots, it looks like just that, they claimed to have used it but didn't really.
Now on paper the PS2's poly count, and the Xbox's were actually closer, but in real world use it's the GC and Xbox who had closer poly counts. As soon as you started to do anything to the poly's on the PS2, in regards to textures, or effects the poly's per second took huge fucking hits. Meanwhile you have the GC doing around 32 million polys per second in Rogue Squadron 3, hell a LAUNCH title RS2 was doing between 12 - 16 million.
You want to talk about a console being underutilized you talk about the GC. Only Nintendo, Capcom, and Factor 5 really pushed it to it's limits and their games sit head and shoulders above everything else on the platform visually.