Thanks for the lesson ...

The thing is that CoD levels are much larger scale, while free camera or not, the RE games have straightforward levels. They cannot be compared to a game unless it has the same kind of level design.

thats...pathetic. now i think activision isnt even trying.

also for those calling out bruno, if you need something else just look at screens for silent hill or monster hunter tri. although his example was terrible, he is right to say that activision should get a lesson from capcom.

Silent Hill = No Combat

MH Tri = One major enemy at a time.

Neither are legit comparisons.

Also I can see you people are comparing shots as if CoD4s pics weren't pre-beta.
Those pics were still alpha, aka shouldn't have been shown to the public so late.
Development for the game started after Spider Man WoS and Quantum of Solace. Why Activision showed off old pics is beyond me.

IGN has already said the game looks somewhat better than WaW.

Does combat matter much if you still have animated characters with AI, chasing you down? And you perform animations to shake them off.  I don't that calculating damage does that much extra power. As for monster hunter 3, there are many times where you have more than one large enemy, and they don't have to be "bosses" to be large, there are even times where you fight a boss then another boss comes to fight you both(though the weaker boss would run away), or a boss fight with 10-20 smaller enemies attacking both you, the boss, an eachother. This game isn't a simple let's fight small monsters, then fight one harder big monster at a time. From these screens the game looks horrible. Maybe we shoud compare other FPS to it.

The Grinder

See More The Grinder Screenshot at IGN.com

See More The Grinder Screenshot at IGN.com

See More The Grinder Screenshot at IGN.com

This is is a game also early in developement, and with the exception of bad art style, it is superior to what we have seen in the Call of Duty 4 screens. How can a game that won't be released until the end of 2010 have such good graphics compared to a game that will release in a few months? The only answer I have is that they used VERY old screens, but I don't see why they would do that. I'm not going to judge the graphics until we get a trailer at least, but from the looks of things they aren't going to be up to par with the competition. What I want to see added to this engine is better Anti Aliasing, and a more stable framerate. That was something that plagued CoD:WaW wii version(especially framerate), and at least for the Anti Aliasing part seems to be the same thing on CoD4. So we should just wait to see more before we judge, is what the solution seems to be. It shouldn't be too long to see it either, the game releases in 2-3 months.

Maybe because the pics of CoD4 are alpha pics and not Beta pics.
Kotaku has already said the game looks fantastic. And Kotaku gives off this weird vibe towards the Wii. Even they had to say the game looks great.

         I don't know how far in to developement Alpha and Beta are so both of those descriptions have very little of an effect on me. Maybe if you give more specific times of how long Alpha and Beta are into developement. Is Alpha before the game is playable in any form, while Beta in the stages where there is bug testing and such? Also, for what reason would they release older screens? And finally, do you have evidence to support that the game really wasn't past Alpha stages when these screens were taken?

Edit: I do agree about the part where developers say it looks nice, and is why I said we should wait to see more.

Why don't you just read the previews of the game. All the sites said it was pre-beta. AKA still being worked on graphically and technically. Also Treyarch said the game footage was pre-beta. The game was never really ready to be shown off yet, well in a way i guess it was. The game should be in beta form by September.

I don't hate Activision for this, this is the reason I bought a 360. On Nintendo's platforms the only company that gives a flying __CK is Nintendo. The third parties give us watered down ports. I realized this during the GameCube era I had 35 first party titles and like 3 third party titles. So this generation when Nintendo showed the Wii and all the third parties backed the 360 I decided to buy both platforms.

A game built for the 360 is always going to look inferior on the Wii plain and simple. The Wii is a Nintendo platform for Nintendo games. The 360 is a third party platform for third party games. Much like GameCube was a Nintendo platform for Nintendo games while PS2 was the third party platform for third party games.

Don't get me wrong I think developers are milking the whole inferior graphics thing. If Treyarch had more time and resources I'm sure they could churn out something far superior. But lets face it, Wii ports are made as cheaply as possible with only a single goal. Make lots of money off of the cheapest junk you can put on the Wii.

That being said I'm a massive Nintendo junky. But when I bought my Wii I already knew going in that we wouldn't see the third party support the 360 gets. Its a sad reality, so I bought a 360 and now can enjoy the best of both worlds. The best of Nintendo and the best of third parties.