Why is UC4 considered a better game than Rise of the Tomb Raider?

[MTZehvor]

BraLoD said:

MTZehvor said:

That's got to be a contender for the least helpful comment of the year. OP is clearly aware that people like it more, they're wondering what aspects of it make it more widely liked.

(Spoilers Inbound for RotTR)

I think one thing that really hurt RotTR is its absolute mess of a plot. While Uncharted 4 isn't amazing in that regard, RotTR's feels like a discount version of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Mystical artifact that grants immortality being guarded by an incredibly devoted group of natives and a guy that's lived for hundreds of years, hero finds themself in a race against time to get said artifact before a cartoonishly evil organization that might as well be the Nazis, hero ultimately retrieves the artifact but chooses to not use it due to a last second realization. Only in RotTR, these points are explained far more poorly than in Indiana Jones. We get no explanation as to what caused Lara's snap decision to smash the Divine Source, especially after she goes on and on about how much good it could do for the world, and the dad issues portion of Lara's character arc is handled very sloppily.

For what it's worth, UC4 has plenty of issues in the plot department as well, but at the very least it does feel like its own story and all the major points are explained satisfactorily.

The thread goes on the ideas that the reviews arent justified, so it negates all points made on them, and asks for a new one.

Its asking why something is considered better than another while rulling out the implied reasons, so its subjective and my answer goes directly into that, if reviewers points arent an answer, then its purely subjective, in theory at least, as reviews should be work of professionals.

The other side be review bias, both as those games share both big franchises behind them and exclusivety at launch, it pretty much negates it until the point of both of them taking from eachother as similar games, which Uncharted took inspiration from TR and later TR took from Uncharted after it success to get out of the limbo.

So, with biases balanced, and all points made on reviews being not enough, it comes upon personal perception, so I stand for my answer: because people liked it more.

I think you're reading into his intentions far too much. All he says in regards to the two games is: "While I enjoy both franchises I cant understand why UC4 got such rave reviews compared to TR.. it's a good game. But I cant see a single thing that makes it a better game than Rise of the Tomb Raider."

In other words, he's not sure of the reasons why one title is more highly praised than the other. Obviously most reviewers liked UC4 more than RotTR, and the question at the end of the post is "why?" What are the things that people liked more about UC4 than RotTR? Is it the story? The gunplay? The set pieces? That may all sound like stuff you could easily find simply by looking at the reviews, but without a direct comparison between the two games being written and published by a website it's hard to narrow things down. As an example, a reviewer may praise both UC's and TR's set pieces as being good, but may believe that UC's set pieces are simply better. You wouldn't be able to tell that simply from reading the same person's two reviews, unless he actively goes out of his way to compare the two in review, which most reviewers won't. There's no easy way to find out what reviewer X thinks about how two games handle similar elements compared to each other. OP is simply looking for some insight into what people think are things UC did better than TR.