For so many things there are so many pure theoretical models like pictorial language, micro kernel operating systems or complete democracy. But in reality what works better are often hybrids.
Chinese sure has its pictorial aspect but it also uses many other approaches since its comes a long way to what it is today.
As @倪阔乐 pointed out, latin letters also have pictorial origins, but I don't think Indo-European languages count as pictorial languages since the letter doesn't carry meaning today even though its form was inspired by things in reality. Where Chinese characters commonly do (but not always) although some of those pictorial components have gone through heavy revisions.
For example, when I was reaching for another question, the one about left and right, if found out the top part of 左 and 右 comes from the shape of hand which used to be the same symbol of 又. The 工 and 口 are added later and the top parts were revised.
So it seems to me the question about whether or not Chinese is pictorial really depends on your definition of being pictorial. It is pictorial if you consider whether or not the construction of the character or basic meaning unit of the language have a visual root connect to its meaning. It is not if you consider whether or not if it is as pictorial as ancient Egyptian.