LMAO people weren't joking Uncharted 4 IS a climbing simulator...

@jg4xchamp: yeah the character work was pretty awful in TR2013. Lara was the best point, and wasn't very good. UC4's story may be generic, but it's definitely in a different class from TR2013 in terms of telling a multi-faceted story with characters who appear to have a background of some sort.

Its platforming is clearly taken from the Tomb Raider and Prince of Persia school of platforming, but not as good.

Guess what? I played both and loved both and I say they are actually very similar. And lol at Pedro that saidd TR is open world... I think he must rethink what open world exactly means... Sure TR is more open but that also results in a less variety of areas to play in. I dont get why people assume that open world automatically means the game is better, thats a falacy. Gameplay wise both Uncharted and TR are VERY similar

Jim Sterling says it how it actually is:

What does that have to do with what I said? How does any of that excuse a "main mechanic" from being boring as hell?

I've enjoyed the other UC games and I don't remember any of them having nearly as much downtime as this one does, so no, they're really not the exact same.

"While you don't like it many people do,which bring me to my next point of which is i hate the game you like,"

What the hell does that even mean?

Yeah, the combat is great. However, if you've read my comments in this thread, that's not the issue I have with this game. The issue is they have so little combat that the game drags to a complete halt for most of it, at least as far as I've gotten. Hand to hand fighting has never been good in UC. UC3 introduced it and it was a stripped back batman then and it's not much better now.

If you're going to actually try and have a discussion with me then don't bring up scores or awards, they literally add nothing to this discussion. Try you know, actually talking about a game for once.

4 hours in according to steam. But I kind of got bored.

Then you remember them poorly go play them again.

The game is not boring if you find it like that cool,is your TASTE which mean nothing to anyone but your self.

So you really can't discuss games without scores. That's just sad.

Also apart from the third entry, no they most certainly do not have the amount of downtime that UC4 has. No I do not remember them poorly, I played them all a few months ago.

For the most part, including UC3, they'd have segments of combat interspersed with sections of climbing and walking. UC4 seems to do away with that for the most part and have large sections of walking and climbing with single combat encouters in between. Yes there's exceptions but at least as far as I've gotten in that description holds true.

@jg4xchamp:

I know, isn't that awesome?!!! Tomb Raider was always meant to be a boring game!! Now it is again! TR 13 was all firefight, trek, firefight, trek...it was so stupid and felt more like an Uncharted wannabe! Tomb Raider was always meant to be an aquired taste. It was its own brand of flavor, not about doing what everyone else is doing. It's a return to form at long last!

Lara's voice actress sucks and has no emotion. Actually the acting in the game plain sucks and everybody just sounds unnatural. Seems like a bunch of amateur-hour actors. The script is also terrible and the writers take it way too seriously.

Uncharted 4 is much more engaging in its plot. It's not very good either but at least it has some charm. Tomb Raider has none.

Also combat in Uncharted 4 is a lot better than ROTTR. Encounter design is more fun, engaging and the usage of the environment in the different encounters make a lot of them feel unique.

ROTTR isn't very good truth be told.

Oh i can but nothing you say will change my opinion and nothing i say will change yours,that is why score exist,again you find it boring,i did not,i found it very good specially at the end,pretty happy with the gameplay adjustment done,like any game it has some flaws,which are to be expected.

From there to complain about a mechanic of a game which i know before hand that will be present is another 2 cents.

Speaking of the Tomb Raider reboots..... Did the developers cut down on Lara's grunting (or moaning)? I couldn't help but giggle sometimes. ;)

You do realise not everything has to be an argument right? You could actually articulate why you think the climbing mechanic adds to the game rather than simply using someone else's opinion (ie a score) to justify a game, to just have a discussion about games.

Looking through this thread, that's the thing that's missing from one side. People are discussing what they don't like about the game but the other side that likes it are simply spouting off their usual crap with no discussion being made.

@Juub1990: You must be called all sort of names in SW. I mean in this same thread you are now a ****in Cow for knocking ROTTR like that lol.

@jun_aka_pekto:

I don't miss Lara's moaning at all in Rise of the Tomb Raider. I swear to god, it sounded like someone was fingerbanging her at times. Were some of those really grunts or was I hearing Lara getting busy?

If you say something bad about Sony you're a lem.

If you say something bad about Sony while owning a gaming PC you're a lem hiding behind PC.

If you say something bad about Microsoft you're a cow.

If you say something good about Nintendo you're a sheep.

If you say something bad about consoles you're a hermit.

If you say something bad about PC you're a peasant.

I do all of those pretty frequently.

It's pretty solid.

Disagree. The story and plot suck but the characters are good.

Still the same shit about Drake looking for a treasure then being lead to a clue that leads to another that leads to another. It's almost the exact same thing as Uncharted 2. Drake competes against a psychopath to find a treasure. Psychopath is incompetent with an army of equally incompetent goons who couldn't find their own asses with both hands and a map. Drake and the goons always end up in the same locations(because Drake inadvertently leads them) and a puzzle takes them somewhere that will take them somewhere that will reveal a map of the general area where the treasure is. Area is always some mythical place. Also turns out the treasure was something different than what everybody expected. There will be an inevitable stand off between Drake and the main antagonist around or in the treasure room and the antagonist will meet his demise due to greed. As usual Drake will walk away with nothing. It follows the exact same formula as Uncharted 2 and 3 to a lesser extent(didn't get far into 3) and by now it's grown old and tired and wasn't even good to begin with.

Too much knuckle dragging. Too much padding because it's a video game and needs to meet the minimum of game time. Pacing is awful. Turn it into a book or a movie and it'd be garbage. It's saved by good writing(for dialogues) charming characters and humor. The story isn't solid at all.

That was probably the most annoying element in the game and the series except for UC1 because it was all one location. But that shit of a clue leading you to an elaborate contraption that points to another clue that is another elaborate bullcrap over and over and over again gets disgustingly old. That shit tosses any semblance of a believable story in the shitter. While ROTR story was also garbage it didn't revolve around a while goose chase for a treasure but the RPGesque stuff were you do something for me and I will do something for you.

You know what really disturbed me at times in the Tomb Raider reboot? The way they almost fetishized her death scenes. Good lord they linger on some of the most graphic deaths I've ever seen outside of a mortal kombat game. Not lasting one or two seconds but sometimes five or six and that's long enough to feel like the camera really wants to stay there so you can enjoy her disgusting bloodied death.

Yeah that shit is really annoying. First you look for a cross in an abandoned prison 15 years past. Whoops cross is empty. 15 years later you learn there is another one. Go to Italia, steal the cross. Instead of pointing to the treasure it points to a damn cathedral. You then look for a grave around the cathedral. The grave features an elaborate puzzle that reveals a map of Madagascar. You got to Madagascar and screw around in a Jeep to find a volcano. You find the volcano and it leads you to a tower. You find the tower and do an elaborate puzzle. You do the elaborate puzzle that reveals yet another location. You find the mythical city. Go on a hunt. You find yet another map that reveals where the treasure might be hidden...

I swear historical figures in Uncharted were just trolls. They probably couldn't remember where they hid their shit with all the running around they have you do with clues and contraptions.

When you think of all the money spent on these "clues" you got to wonder if there any of the treasure left.

UC4 made it work very nice actually. The context of Avery elaborate recruitment / trap plan. With importance of drake past, why they needed to follow that and where they were after the other games. The game probably lost its pacing because of covering Sam and the past stuff but **** all that was needed to actually make this chase Avery clue after clue work. It was all presented well i thought but you have to follow the characters lows high and there frustration with it too. lol you really have to accept the movie part of UC4 though.

My friend has Tomb Raider 2013. His kids are all girls as are mine. When we play the game, we have to turn the volume down. ;)

lmfao its funny because its true

Except they did the exact same thing in Uncharted 2.

I mean yeah here is another treasure hunt. Follow the clues again. The why go clue after clue again I thought was explained well. You also get to the point where you realise oh this is also about the story of this Avery person not only about his treasure. So what he has layed out seemed fitting. Of course the performance how the character react to this again was alright, helped.

@jg4xchamp: I don't disagree with much if that assessment... Not sure I hold too much against its stupid story, considering a few hours into every video game I'm pondering how stupid it is... In the case of her lack of decision making vs forced pressure, that's not something I've thought about in her case, but yeah, I can see that it's more a tale of her having a bad day than her growing into a fearless tomb raider.

Interested to hear your take on Rise... Its systems make more sense in a sum if it's parts sense. Some may not care, but the fact I am always in game (with the exception of campfires) compels me. I make my secondary weapons as I find them... I heal as I find health, etc... The tombs actually pay you for your burden... They aren't difficult, or at least haven't been (I've done 5 or 6) but you get skill perks which to me is worth the sidetrack...

My complaint thus far is only that I've been a beast since the first moment and supplies are literally everywhere. I only die when I miss a jump and even when I have a lousy combat encounter I can clumsily dance my way out of it... That said, there are 3 or 4 different ways to approach every encounter, so if perfectionist type commitment to a particular gameplay is your thing, there are some meat on the bones for being sneaky in those "tall grass" type situations.

I do enjoy the ways Rise improved over the reboot, and I wouldn't claim they've reached some beacon of story or gameplay excellence, but it offers a little more careful thought and placement over its predecessor.

Its funny how the most improved aspect (the combat) is barely present in the game, and the least engaging aspect (climbing) is actually the majority of gameplay. I'm not sure what they were thinking really.

haha, those movie games, just shows how much reviewers know about games and especially how much of a gamer the mainstream gamer is nowadays. The cinematics are gorgeous though but where's the gameplay....

I guess they left it back in somewhere in 2005, well at least naughty dog did.

Love those tall grasses that don't make a sound nor move an itch while you're sneaking in them. Perfect for ambushing unsuspecting enemies.

Precisely, as a gamer for most of my play through in this game I felt like my intelligence as a human being was constantly under assault. You gain control and then it's ripped away from you for the game to execute basic tasks that you as a person could handle yourself.

Simple things like that whole 'you can't fall off this beam' thing, that's insulting, you don't allow my control to have any weight when crossing, I want the option to fail. Decisions that have absolutely no meaning or the game will make for you.... Or the fighting, it's an illusion of a fight with an already predetermined outcome waiting to trigger another cut scene, I'm just there as a means of witnessing the plan, I'm not really executing the plan.

That is why I find this game to be 5-6/10 level, because as a game it fucking stinks, it's a bad game, as a game it is bad, it's a great cinematic experience but it's hot garbage for the medium in which it exists.

I enjoy and love the movies Fool's Gold, Indiana Jones, National Treasure, things this game pulls inspiration from, but those are movies, and this is trying to be them and allowing as little player interaction as possible because it needs to play out like a movie. That is where the problem lies, the game tricks you constantly into thinking that you're playing a fully fleshed out game, and then it suddenly goes autopilot, again, and again, and again...

well a lot of games use a lot of cutscenes nowadays, and a lot of games are indeed just too easy. I'm not saying that skyrim or fallout is a bad game but the very easy setting is ridiculous, fallout did make it better with giving you more loot by playing a higher difficulty level, still you don't really need that extra loot when you're playing on very easy.

I may be sad for us core gamers that games are dumbed down like this but uncharted 4 is selling very well, don't forget that games have never been as popular as today and these type of games have a lot to do with it, not everyone is looking for a challenge, some people just want an experience that's easy, like you would see a movie.

If you're looking for that kind of experience I can understand the game scores high but 10/10 is a bit over the top, an 8 would have been more fitting.

@dynamitecop: your opinion on which games are considered good is why nobody takes you seriously. You praise games that have universally been scored shit, and poo poo games like uncharted 4. Just face facts bro, you're a shill. UC4 is a masterpiece, and my opinion is shared by most professional reviewers and gamers alike. Giving it a rating of 5/10 shows how much of a clown you are. Give your shill head a fucking shake already and go do something productive.

Your entire post is a contradiction.

See, the problem with people like you is you can't rationalize your reasons for liking or disliking something, you can't create or accept valid criticism, you hamstring your entire process of thinking on the back of what other people think.

You exist in a state of sheep like mentality where validation is needed to like something, where you need to be told by other people via their opinions that something is good to like it. The same seems to apply in the opposite direction as well for games you've never even played, you yet again form your views on the backs of what other people think, even people who like yourself have not played a specific game you still take heed of their views to validate or formulate your own.

Did you fail to notice that you addressed what I actually said about the game in zero capacity? You didn't even attempt to tackle my criticism, instead you turn it around on me personally, not the criticism itself but rather the person. You do not possess the capability to engage criticism, you do not possess the ability to engage opposing views, you do not possess the ability to understand that just because something is well created, a great cinematic experience or has high production values that this does not equate to it actually being a good video game.

As a video game, as a playable piece of software in the medium of mechanically functioning games, Uncharted 4 is not a good game, and is severely lacking in quality gameplay, gameplay distribution and pacing.

Uncharted 4 is the amalgamation of what would be if Sega CD, 3DO and Phillips CD-I type full-motion-video games took hold in the 90's, the same ideology that drove those type of games then, is what birthed games like Uncharted 4 into existence now. It's shallow entertainment with very limited or important engagement of and for the player, it's an insult to the intelligence of a player and it's an insult to the mechanical ideology of what makes up game play.

Now you can be completely fine with this and enjoy that type of thing, but don't piss in my face and try to call it rain and somehow try to pass off that this is good game play or that it's not lopsided.

See this is why you're impossible to reason with. You write paragraph after paragraph of nonsense drivel to make it all about you. Uncharted, like every one of them in the series is a bombastic high production, story driven experience. You know what you're getting yourself into if you've played the other 3; a Naughty Dog experience that ties up Drake's story very nicely.

It's an action Indiana jones type game with a legendary treasure discovery at the end of the game. That's the uncharted formula. What UC4 provides, is the fantastic experience leading up to the inevitable treasure discovery. It is THE definitive game in its genre. If you want a game that just gives you guns with thousands of mod options and lets you play however you want, go play MGSV. The gameplay is great, but to me it's utterly pointless without a cohesive story or purpose.

Yes I agree there are parts where the climbing can get tedious and boring, but then you end up in a gorgeous location that just encourages you to look around you and take it all in. The gun play in UC4 is the best of the series by far, as are the graphics (which is the best looking game on any console). The gunfights are fucking great and the rope mechanic and stealth sections just adds to this. The overall game is just such a tight package that's polished to near perfection and delivers the best Uncharted experience of the bunch (my opinion of course).

I feel like you played this game on easy, with a predetermined opinion for the sake of being a contrarian. Your posts are constantly riddled with this type of sour grapes, butthurt contrarian like nonsense just because the best games aren't playable on your console of choice, which is the Xbox.

Thank you for creating an actual reply, I do appreciate it.

While I understand where you're coming from with the ideology that you should know what to expect and so on and so forth, that doesn't mean the game is now somehow exempt from scrutiny surrounding the game play, what you're implying is an imaginary protection bubble so to speak.

At the end of the day it's still a video game, not a movie, and should be approached from all angles and criticized for its deficiencies especially surrounding game play. It's beautiful, there's a lot to see and a lot to experience, but the most meaningful portion of a game, its game play, is where Uncharted 4 falls really flat.

The gun play is very average for a game of this ilk and sparse to say the least, while it may be better than the previous games it is done better in other past and more recent releases, it's not a strong suit. The rope mechanic is nothing special, it doesn't really need to be elaborated on beyond that, it's nothing innovative or new. The stealth is okay but again it's not great, and the AI misses you in direct sight easily not to mention other games which again tackle this better. The puzzles are rudimentary, self explanatory and can be solved with ease, while I still like puzzles such as this it is not reinventing the wheel.

What you have is a mechanical jack of all trades and a master of none, it does everything proficient enough to tie it all together but there's nothing remarkable about any of it. Then you compound this with the realization that climbing around legitimately does make up roughly 50% of the in game interaction, there's a bunch of walking, filler driving and exploration that amounts to nothing, it's questionable in terms of game play viability. The game also requires you to make pointless decisions that have no effect on anything, in many instances it doesn't allow you to control certain elements of the gameplay to make things easier or more thematic, it's hand holding to drive the cinematics.

After a while you begin to realize that the "game play" itself is a filler for the story, it was the least important aspect of Naughty Dogs development of the game, it takes a back seat to the narrative and cinematic presentation that makes up the rest of the game. As I said, you can enjoy this, you can find this to be the bees knees, but on the same token it's insulting and ridiculous to infer or even imply that this is high quality game play, it's just not.

I'd agree in every other respect that they nailed this game, it's 9/10 material, story, characters and cinematic draw, but the ailing and sins of the game play are too much to overlook and drag the entire thing down, maybe not for you, but for someone who values game play it absolutely does.

P.S. And if you ever do want to have a conversation about Quantum Break, because I know that is where your contrast lies, I will go into detail about it and why I view it the way I do.

Just beat it. Holy crap that might be the best looking bad game I've ever finished. The last 1/3 of the game is slightly better than the rest but you're still doing the same bullshit in chapter 20 that you were doing in chapter 1. Its a beautiful world except for when it breaks down because you see the video game rails where the developer is grabbing you buy the arm and shoving you along a path in your giant protective bubble where they spray you with a shit ton of manufactured tension. That final boss fight come complete trash too. It'd be nice to fucking counter you Rafe but the fucking camera is all over the place that I can barely see you.

Calling Uncharted 4 a "climbing simulator" is like calling Super Mario Bros. a "jumping simulator" - it's kind of a silly, reductive description. I think it's intended to be an insult, but in my mind, it kind of embarrasses the person who uses the phrase rather than insulting the game itself.

The thing is, if Uncharted 4 were all about shoot-outs, it wouldn't be Uncharted. And, arguably, the game would then be criticised for being a "shooting simulator" or some other equally silly comment.

What I think Uncharted 4 does well is that it balances exploration and action. The exploration is absolutely crucial to the experience. Also, this game is almost without peer on a mechanical level. Exploring these complex environments feels really seamless - the collision detection and animation are razor sharp.

In any case, and just to re-state the point, complaining about climbing/environmental navigation in Uncharted is kind of like saying that there's too much jumping in Super Mario Bros. or that there are too many whips in Indiana Jones. I mean, this is a big part of what Uncharted is and has always been. If you aren't a fan of traversing cliff faces, or climbing around ancient ruins, then Uncharted really isn't for you.

I suspect that there's a slight element of tall poppy syndrome going on here. Big, highly-praised games often attract this kind of naysaying, or charges of being "overrated".

@djura:

I think the difference is that people don't find the climbing as engaging as other elements of Uncharted and it seems Uncharted 4 has a larger portion of climbing sessions than previous entries (maybe? I don't know. I haven't played it).

When we consider the jumping in Mario, that's a very important part of what makes Mario games so engaging. Jumping is an integral part of the challenge. Jumping over enemies, pitfalls what ever it is.

I don't think Uncharted 4 necessarily has more climbing than any of the other games. In fact, in Uncharted 2, I distinctly remember feeling like all I ever did was climb! But who knows. :P

There's not only more variety in Uncharted 4 as a general observation, but also, I think the climbing itself is much better in Uncharted 4. I mean, mechanically, it was fairly good in the other games...but it's ultra-refined in this one (as you'd expect, after years of iterating on it).

Climbing and exploring is integral to the Uncharted games, in the same way that jumping is integral to Mario. A big part of Uncharted involves exploring ancient ruins, in a way that is very reminiscent of Indiana Jones (the parallels are too obvious to mention, really).

So my argument here is that if people don't like climbing around ruins, then arguably the entire Uncharted franchise just isn't for them, because this is a very core part of the gameplay cadence (and in Uncharted 4, claiming and gunplay are very tightly interwoven - there are many set pieces where the player must combine both skills for survival - whereas in the previous games, I find it's kind of like you're in "climbing mode" or "shooting mode").

@djura:

My experience with Uncharted is limited to Uncharted 2 Among Thieves so I can't really give a solid impression of the whole series.

What I can say is that the climbing portions weren't fun for me and I would have preferred if they weren't in the game. The threshold for a failure state is just too small and the interruptions of something breaking apart from what you are climbing, be it a chair or a rock is of no actual consequence. I think it's also the lack of variable outcome which makes it feel like even though it's interactive, it's not directed by the player. I know they are an integral part of Uncharted though and have been since the series' inception... I just don't know if they are well executed sections in that I personally don't find them any fun.

Compared to Mario with the variable outcomes of a jump are quite large and depend on timing, how long you pushed the button, where you jumped from, what's in your path and the geometry of the level. There's more going on which makes it a more challenging and engaging form of interactivity for me. I think that's where the Uncharted criticisms are coming from in this section.

Here's the problem with your line of thinking, Mario began his life as Jumpman, that is literally his name. Jumping is the key mechanic in Mario's games, has been since the beginning with Donkey Kong and is vital to traversal in Mario's game environments. It's how he gets around, gets to power ups, kills enemies etc, back when the game was 2D it was literally the only way to get around, a requirement as a constraint of the technology, in 2D you have to jump over things to make it through the environment. The fact that Mario jumps means that a Mario game can even function.

Climbing in a game like Uncharted 4 should be an accentuating function, not the main function, think about that for a second, you are climbing in this game more than you are doing any other one thing, please process that. You are climbing more than you're walking, running, more than you're shooting, solving puzzles, driving vehicles, fist fighting, doing on rails sections of the game etc. That's not good game play, that's literally buffer to make the game take longer to beat, and they draw it out really bad, there should be some climbing and traversal, but it shouldn't be the main function in the game.

Now I see you talking about exploration being somehow crucial to the game, it's not in any capacity, you gain nothing by "exploring", you find nothing, there is nothing. All Uncharted 4 is is an A-B linear game with open ended filler environment, there's nothing out there. In Rise of the Tomb Raider you are rewarded for exploring, there's actually things to explore that will advance the game, narrative, your skills, items, food etc, there's incentive to explore because there's actually things to find that are meaningful.

Yes, that's right - jumping is the key mechanic in Mario games. The enemy design, the environment design, and the way that Mario traverses through these obstacles is based around the jumping mechanic.

So far, so good. :-)

So, here's where you're moving off on a tangent and where I will bring this back to the first paragraph in your post. The tangent in question is "what Uncharted 4should be" - that's not what we are discussing. We're talking about what the Uncharted games are (in much the same way that I pointed out what the Mario games are).

I agree entirely that climbing makes up a huge part of Uncharted 4's gameplay. The game is clearly built around this mechanic, in the same way that Mario is built around jumping.

You can argue that there should be more or less climbing, in the same way that you can argue there should be more or less jumping in Mario; I don't have a dog in that fight.

In my view, that's an entirely separate discussion.

The only thing I'd repeat, in order to further emphasise the earlier point, is that in this particular franchise, climbing/physical exploration has always been at the centre of the experience. Sure, there have been lots of shoot-outs and narrative sequences, but climbing around has been the principle way that Nathan Drake has traversed the environments throughout the series.

So now, it depends what you mean by "exploration". I'm talking about physical exploration - the act of climbing, jumping, running around, looking for ways to navigate through an area physically (both vertically and horizontally). If you didn't undertake this exploration, you'd quite literally come to a stand-still and never progress anywhere in the game.

You're saying that Uncharted 4 is an A-B linear game with "open-ended filler environment" - but the open-ended "filler" environment is the game.

It's like dismissing a book by saying that it's "an A-B linear cover with lots of open-ended filler pages". :-)

You can prefer Tomb Raider (which is a different game), you can talk about how you'd prefer that Uncharted were not Uncharted - that's all fine and good.

Again, I think that's a different topic entirely. :-)

@jumpaction: I never played the first game in the series - but I did play 2, 3, and 4.

My general observation is that 2 felt pretty repetitive for me, 3 was less repetitive but also less interesting (aside from some cool set pieces), but 4 was like an entirely different game in many respects. I mean, sure, climbing and exploration were still at the centre, but the act of climbing feels a hell of a lot better in 4 than in the previous games. There is still a lot of that linearity, but there are also some areas that act as multi-layered combat/traversal sandboxes that felt a lot more interesting than anything the previous games offered.

All of that said, the bottom line is this: if you aren't a fan of a linear adventure that involves climbing/physical traversal of ancient ruins, then you probably won't be a huge fan of any of the games in the franchise. This is why this particular thread's critique of Uncharted 4 misfires so badly in my view; it's complaining about something as if it's unique to the latest game, when in fact, it's a far worse problem in all of the previous games in the series.

When we consider climbing in Uncharted that is a very important part of what Uncharted game so engaging,climbing is an integral part of the challenge,climbing over obstacles,pitfalls,even over your own brother as Nate can pass over is brother and keep climbing..

The hate Uncharted get here is undeserved,is a great game that fanboys love to hate,specially after the main franchises on their platform of choice are not what they use to be,so the want Uncharted to go down as well so they can feel better.

1-Great because up until now you have been talking about the game as if it was real life,oh but the wheels of the crate don't match the time.Please man is a game not real life.

2-The gunplay is good better than in Gears,and more loose to.The rope mechanic add a new flavor to how yo tackle even enemies,as you has attack them from there something not present in games like Gears again which characters are confined to the same dock roll of 2006,and glue basically to the grown,but then again in that regard Uncharted was always ahead of Gears,on Uncharted 3 i remember how you could swing down a line and shoot at the same time it added to the gameplay mechanics which are better than the more simplistic Gears one or QB.The AI is good stop playing games in easy,and can't spot you when you are hanging or in the grass because the game is build like that,many games do that do,the biggest abuser is assassins creed,where you can even use 4 woman standing next to you to freaking blend in,yeah like a freaking guard will not notice that you are not a blond hooker.And the puzzles are ok just like many games.

3-Exactly that is the point it is not the best at everything but everything is GOOD which is better than having something great and fell short in basically everything else.Stop pulling 50% out of your ass link me to where ND say 50% of the game is climbing i own the game you know and no didn't feel like 50% to me.The exploration amount to finding artifacts did you play the game.? Because i found many and miss a whole bunch without exploring you can't find them all.You mean like quantum break where you make a different choice and the story barely change anything? See this is why i claim you are a hypocrite quantum break has being accuse of being like that a game where you can change your doings but doing so has little effect on the future it self,it was one of the downplay points of the game.

4-No what is insulting and down right stupid is your damage control for this game,specially after putting a huge effort defending a game that didn't live to its hype and that was struck down for failing in almost every aspect of it,again the amount of energy you put in defending quantum break is a testament to why you are so enrage with Uncharted you wanted the game to score low so you could feel better about your purchase,i exposed your and your hypocrite double standard,so many people like Uncharted because it is a great game how it is,without all its elements Uncharted would be another Gears..

The fun part is how you say now is a 9/10 now when clearly in other instances you say it wasn't and you rooted for the game to go under 90..hahahaha

You view it like you do because you are a blind lemming that one doesn't need an explanation is self explanatory..

The best part is when he begins to play the game with ONE hand. SUCCESSFULLY.

this is why people rather play tombraider as their go to climbing simulator. its much nicer to look at laras butt than the guy from uncharted.

I havent played UC3 or 4 but i remember a fair bit of climbing in the first 2 games but not quite as much as they had in Rise of Tombraider. The 2013 game had a better balance and didn't over do the climbing.

Haha. I'd rather look at Nathan's butt, thanks. :P

Seems we have an overabundance of climbing in games lately.
Maybe a session of Downwell will relieve this?

the first 3 games were criticized for being too much shooting, not enough environment interaction.

@tormentos:

Well, personally I didn't like the climbing in Uncharted 2 and I didn't think it was challenging. You sort of stick to the surfaces and it's very hard to fail.

I don't get involved with fanboy stuff.