"Because comparing a complete and polished game to a work in progress in Alpha stage is completely fair, right?"
Screenshots and footage of an Alpha do usually look as good if not better than the final product. More often than not developers end up scaling things back a tad in the final product to improve performance. You seem to think that just because a game is early in development that the graphical engine is also in early development, which is typically not the case. Especially seeing as how this is using the same engine and many of the same assets as the original Conduit.
"*facepalms* ya there obviously gonna somehow downgrade the graphics for the sequel, walks off to next topic."
Seeing as how the original ran at abysmal framerates any time the action would heat up (15-20fps was common), they may have had to make sacrifices in order to improve performance.
"One improvement already proven is the environments; what little we've seen so far tops the first game's bland corridors, and wisely places more focus on water, one of the engine's prettier aspects."
I haven't seen much improved on a technical level. Most of the improvements have been artistic, and that isn't hard to do seeing as how ugly the first game was.
"The games not done yet."
But the graphics engine, as well as the locations that have been shown (aesthetically anyway), likely are done. Seeing as how the game is very far along in development I very seriously doubt we will see any improvement in the graphics whatsoever. I'd like to be proved wrong, but this argument about alpha graphics not representing the final product (often times the final product looks worse) is about as weak as the argument that game demo's don't represent then full game when in fact they almost always do.