Disagree. Just started up Golden Abyss now to double check. The textures in those screenshots aren't representative (you're right) but the real ones are still far from low-res. To say it's "nowhere near" the quality we see in Drakes fortune is insane. The water also looks gorgeous, waterfalls look especially good and the level on the river is a good showcase. Poly counts aren't as high as what's seen on PS3, but it's certainly not a huge difference. And along with the better lighting, the colours are super vibrant because of the OLED screen.

There's a reason why the majority of people who've played it describe it as on-par or very close to Drake's fortune. You're the first person I've heard describe it as otherwise. That's not to say that you're wrong because the majority disagree with you, but you calling people silly for thinking it competes with Drakes fortune is clearly unreasonable.

meh, i agree with selnor. Its not as good graphically as UC1 when i take my time to inspect it. Yet i found it visually as good as UC1 becasue of lighting and oled. I have some persoanl issues lighting and shadows on npc tough.

I'm not so sure you people played the same game as I did...I thought the graphics were amazing. Not Uncharted 2 or 3 good, but easily on par with Uncharted 1, and in some ways even better (I felt the art direction was superior.) Character animations were on par, technical aspects were very close, art direction was better, and those screenshots were pretty dead on from what I Remember playing. Hell, I rarely ever take time to sit down and admire the graphics in a game, but I probably wasted close to an hour of the 12 hours or so I spent playing Golden Abyss just staring at how pretty the graphics are.

Oh, and the water effects were fantastic.

Easily on par with the first game.

Uncharted Drakes Fortune

Uncharted Golden Abyss ( At actual resolution on Vita )

Golden abyss is better than the other uncharted games because it has cool gameplay elements and is less linear, plus didn't focus too much on the cliche and stupid BOOM AHHHHHH moments it's an adventure game, not a bloody generic overrated shooter.
Let the butthurt flow through ye, because you never know Good games with crap ones.
and before you say I just hate on uncharted for no reason, no , I dislike assassins creed just as much but that's because of different reasons (being way WAAAY too easy and repetitive) ,
how you do an adventure game = tomb raider
How you do sandbox stealth = arkam city
How you do a good game, stop focusing too much about graphics, honestly who's going to remember uncharted and gears when better looking games come out on consoles?, no one.
This rant will never end.

durr, look at me, I can get a crappy, washed out picture of Golden Abyss taken away from the Vita and compare it to the best lookin dynamic stuff in Uncharted 1!  look at me fail at making a proper argument!

Its actually more representitive than any pics normally posted here.

Vita Uncharted is

Low res like that pic.

Low poly models like that pic

Has visible jaggies like that pic

Against

Uncharted 1 PS3

Much crisper textuers

Much tighter resolution = way less jaggies

Much more wire mesh used for polygon models

Model dynamics far more intricate

Even Sony said Vita cant do what PS3 games do.

Even when climbing the cliffs in GA the forest below is clearly a 2d sprite ( albeit a good resolution 2d sprite ). In the PS3 version you wont find a 2d sprite below whilst climbing a cliff. Sorry. Way to many things about GA that just make it lime PS2.5. Nowhere near UC DF PS3.

don't even bother trying to push the agenda.  the Vita has a 520 resolution screen, which is barely better than the standard definition 480, of course the textures aren't going to compare to a 720p or 1080i game, that'd be stupid to assume such.  That said, given the OLED screen on the system and the way the game was designed, it looks just as good.  it's just as vibrant (in some cases even moreso), has equally good animations, and it's just as pretty overall.  

Graphics aren't all polygons, dude; art direction, animation, contrast, and various other aspects come into play, as well.  Kinda sick of people pushing their negative agendas becuase "OMG a game isn't flawless, better slander the fuck out of it on a forum!"  get a life, you'd likely be far happier if you thought more positively instead of focusing on negatives and trying to take small flaws and blowing them out of proportion.  

Fuck's sake, this is why I should stay off the internet. 

Technically, graphics are that, polygons, textures, how animations run,framrate. Pretty much everything that is technical. Art direction is more subjective and would fall in visual style. The strong in vita is that it can bring visuals at par with hd games, not with the same graphics but with the same sense of pleasent looking aspect as first console games. DOnt need to take it bad if some one think this, as selnor said it was  the design of the game itself that didnt bring his attention. And you might be happier if you accepted that peole have a different point of view in what they consider good or bad.

This post.

I agree many 'tricks' have been used to make GA look really good.

When those over 'tricks' fail or are seethrough the tecnical underlay is actually pretty fugly.