The first game was old-school as fuck, but a little too much action. I think where the second two games in the series shine is in the focus on the platforming. They're all great games though, especially for history buffs.Seems like I might like the first Uncharted. Went straight to the second one. Wasn't impressed. The story was less Raiders quality and more 90s WB adventure show starring Bruce Campbell quality. Trivial platforming or whatever you want to call it, with auto corrected jumps for the scrubs. Gun selection was boring and feedback wasn't very satisfying. Enemy variety wasn't great. The tank set piece far out did all others, because it actually affected how I played the game instead of being essentially a backdrop for the same old mole popping. Of course the easier, more spectacle heavy game got more praise from the plebs. A well made game isn't necessarily an interesting game, which ties into some feelings I have about the hubbub surrounding 10/10 review scores and the idea of perfection, but that's for another day.
I'm just going to accept my hipster status and say that if the first Uncharted got criticized for being too hard, it's probably a better game for me. In today's parlance, "too hard" usually means "it required competence from me."
And bewbs.Honestly, I'd rather just go play the old Tomb Raider games again. At least those had real puzzles and platforming challenges.
3 is like 2: no game and great set pieces patched together.
Not going to bother with the fourth one out of respect for Hennig, and also to hell with Druckmann.