Agree, Uncharted 3 had a better singelplayer than Uncharted 2. I love the desert setting in Uncharted 3!!!
But imo the multiplayer in Uncharted 2 was much better than the multiplayer in Uncharted 3 (didn't play this one much because I couldn't enjoy it).

I can agree to disagree on the story. As I found it to be more personal than the first two games and I think 2 borrows way too much from the first game story wise.

But the gunplay in 3 being worse than 1?  The first game is borderline unplayable on the PS3. I genuinely can't see how someone could say that 3 is anything but head and shoulders better than 1. 2 and 3 have very similar gunplay. With 4 seeing a bigger change than 3 did.

As far as puzzles go I just found them more consistent than in 2. In 2 I really liked most of them, but found some to be poorly laid out.

Like I said, I don't find 3 vastly better than 2. But I do think it's better.

PS. I haven't finished yet. But so far I can't disagree with his ranking.

I'm fine with that.

I'm not sure I follow. Uncharted 1 had the tighest of gunplays in all the games. The third game just felt like changing it, and as a result, it is the most sloppy and unreliable gunplay system of all three games: bullets don't go where they're supposed to, enemies reactions to being hit are worse than U2's (and I'd argue than U1's as well), and the hit detection is wonky, which is especially painful on the higher difficulties.

The main flaw of Uncharted 1 wasn't its gunplay, which is ace. The main flaws were the enemy waves and their over-agressive AI, which was relentless and never allow Nathan to catch a break, and I could see people struggling with it.

One of the things they changed in the collection was to make the gunplay more like the later two games because it was slow and imprecise in the first game.

They even made a big deal out of saying that they fixed the gunplay in the first game.

And as I said, I find the gameplay in 2 and 3 to be very similar.

But Uncharted 3 is the epitome of slow and imprecise. Heck, Naught Dog themselves adressed why they "changed it from U2" when everyone was saying the gunplay in U3 was definitively off; an explanation that, no matter how they wanted to put it, really pointed out how they screwed it up after the previous entry.

And since you're mentioning that, Bluepoint didn't "fix" the gunplay of the first game; they just simply took the algorithms of all games and made an amalgam with the best mechanics from each game incorporated in all three.. Which by the way, it also fixed U3's sloppiness and wonkiness.

Are you playing The Nathan Drake Collection, by any chance? Because that would explain a lot.

Reviews scores that are still missing on Metacritic (and should count, according to your publications list)
Gamereactor Denmark
Score: 10/10 (= 100%)
Gamesreactor Sweden
Score: 10/10 (= 100%)
Game World Navigator Magazine
Score: 96%
Videogameszone.de
Score: 94%
PC Games (Germany)
Score: 94%
Gaming Target
Score: 96%
Washington Post
Score: Four out of Four (= 100%)
I sent a e-mail to them (editorial@metacritic.com)

why they don't include these ¬¬

Is it still possible it might climb to 95?

Most of those aren't on Metacritic. The Washington Post is though.

Maybe they're sitting in a meeting table in a ominously dark room, deciding the scores each game gets so it doesn't go above the "chosen" games by the Metacritic Secret Society. So they decide to omit some scores so the average calculating process is transparent and it doesn't raise any red flags with the end user.

I kid 

The xbox and nintendo fanboy troll reviews are finally getting washed out by enough other reviews coming in. Its just unfortunate how a game that gets a 94% metacritic can't get a comparable user score due to fanboys.

It takes 18-19 (yes literally 19) perfect 10's to balance a single 0.