Not at all actually, but I have played it on my PC and it looks stunning, much much better than the ps3 and 360 versions and certainly better than killzone 2 but it's on pc with full settings so I would expect it anyway, just a shame the multiplayer on the pc version is very poor.

AMD Athlon 64 5200+ overclocked to 3Ghz with 4gb ram and Radeon HD4850 as GPU (MW2 runs easily with highest settings). Certainly a lot more powerfull than X360.

Hmm, very odd then as it really does look stunning on my pc?

I'd suggest you to get your eyes checked. I've finished MW2 2 days ago on my PC on 1920*1200 with FSAA 8x on highest settings playing on professional 21'' EIZO LCD monitor and the only thing that looks good in MW2 to some extent are character models. Backgrounds look like crap, water is abysmal, trees are made from 8 polygons and look like twisted blocks... It might look great on 600p on a big screen, but it doesn't look that spectacular at 1200p.

Art design is great, I really enjoyed changing scenery in every single mission. From snowy mountains, through brazilian favelas to post ap washington d.c., on the oil rig and in the gulag. But when it comes to technology, MW2 graphics are slightly above the average for PC game. Don't get me wrong, I've thoroughly enjoyed the game (I was actualy surprised that it was better than I was expecting). But it is far from the level of Killzone 2 and Crysis, FAR.