I played through this game on my cousin's PS3 the other day and I have to say...the graphics really aren't that good. I heard people say they were amazing but they look like every other 360/PS3 game. Equal to Resistance and somewhat worse then BioShock & Gears of War (I don't like GoW but I must admit it looks great).

I really can't see the hype. The back of the box says that "they're the most photorealistic graphics I've ever seen"....which I cannot understand. Not even close. Heck, I don't think there's anything I've seen on 360/PS3 that looks even slightly photorealistic...Crysis is the ONLY game I've ever seen that looks pretty photorealistic. (at least from the videos and screenshots I've seen of it)

Anyone else underwhelmed by the graphics?

And as for the game itself...I think it is good but not as good as the first two CoDs, oh and I love the cheats that change the graphics...like make the game black & white, or ragtime, or photonegative...

Plus the game's "Epilogue' is very odd. It seems to have nothing to do with the story and is somewhat obscene. ("Go deep and go hard?" .... and it's named "Mile High Club")

Did you play it on a HD tv?

 I played it at 1680x1050 on my PC and I can confirm it wasn't awe inspiring.  It was "ok".  The oohs and awes from the 360/PS3 crowd aren't warranted imo.  But then again I may have a warped opinion since playing the Crysis demo..which is truly in a different league from any game I have seen, released or otherwise.

 No.

 But the other games I mentioned looked amazing on the TV...

@NintendoTogepi: People will see your username, then check the thread title again and release their fanboy rage at you.

I have yet to play CoD4, my 7900 died and I'm getting a X1950GT on day 20 :P

But I mentioned that other PS3 and 360 games looked better then it...and the people at the PlayStation boards are a joke.

Here's what one said:

"Are you serious dude?  You really expect a game to have detailed textures and graphics on a SDTV?  Get real dude.  The is NEXT GEN, where games are meant to be played on HDTV's."

and what another said:

"You really shouldn't even own a ps3 if you don't have an HDTV,Then you complain about graphics and your playing on a black and white 19" Zenith LOL u have to be like 12 years old so you get a pass."

...

^I know about those guys, that's exactly what I mean :)

looks fantastic to me, its all in game, theres a huge difference between Real time and FMV or whatever they are.

Faces are not that great, but everything is stunning. Gears might look a tad more realistic but its cause of very dark colors, CoD 4 is more realistic cause the world is alot more colorful then in gears.

I think the big thing CoD is missing is on the secondary textures. And what I mean is that the primary textures that the player is supposed to be focusing on are very sharp, crisp and in general well done. But the secondary stuff you aren't supposed to be looking at in combat like walls, the ground, rubble, etc... is not nearly as sharp and it creates a contrast between the two when you are looking for it.

Which basically goes to the heart of my opinions of CoD4, which is that it is a great game with solid graphics. But it is missing the sharper secondary textures to make stand out as a "Wow" or a "Holy crap!"...at least on graphics...because I must admit I adore the mission death from above on arcade mode =P There is just something awesome about using the 105mm cannon to rack up huge points that cuts to the core of why FPS games are fun.

Still one of the best looking games ive ever seen, and in multiplayer its top notch