Keep in mind that neither game is a incredibly complex and deep but Tomb Raider does have much more depth than the Uncharted titles.  I don't think that anyone can argue that (provided they play both).  The thing is, we have a breed of gamer that doesn't actually want to play a game (and yeah, sometimes, I fall into that demographic).  They just care about graphics and story.  Nothing wrong with that.  The thing is, I personally think that Tomb Raider beats Uncharted in those areas, too!

Based on ghettoglamour's categories, I'd say Uncharted beats Tomb Raider in characters (Sully and Elena ftw!) and having a tighter, but not actually better, story.  That's it.  But, like they say, opinions are like assholes--Everybody's got one and most of them stink.

I like Uncharted, but I wouldn't call it better than most other action/adventure games. For one, Uncharted is significantly lacking in most "adventure" gameplay aspects, and what it does have (platforming, puzzling) has been done far better in other games (Prince of Persia and everything else, respectively).

Also, set pieces just don't do it for me when they are the main focus of the game.

hit me back when tomb raider has multiplayer worth playing

after i beat the campaign in a week or so that's all that matters imo

And that's the thing, to me.  These days, we get so many people gushing over these "games" that place so much emphasis on graphical achievement, mind blowing set pieces, and breakthrough technology instead of gameplay (and yes, I am aware that games can have both--not directed at you, FOX, just anybody else who's ready to pounce on me.).  When you look at games of the past, the ones that stand out as timeless aren't the ones that broke new ground graphically.  They're the ones that got gameplay down pat.  Your Super Mario World, Street Fighters, Tetris, Pac Man, Link to the Past, etc..

Loving a game based solely on presentation (which, let's face it, is what Uncharted does best) is like loving a woman based solely on her outer beauty.  You can overlook a LOT of flaws because the outside is so good looking but, over time, the beauty is going to fade.  Prettier things will catch your eye.  Then, you realize that what you fell in love with was really quite shallow to begin with.

Make a game first and focus on presentation second.  That's how you create a timeless classic.  Ten years from now, I would probably rather play Prince of Persia on Gamecube than Uncharted on PS3.  One will still be a game.  The other will be an outdated movie.

I am playing Tomb Raider on a PC with Nvidia 3d Vision on a Beamer and it´s absolutely gourgeus. Despite a little crosshair problem it´s the most immersive experience I´ve ever had with a game.

You definitely should check it out.

Besides that both games are really good and you will have a lot of fun playing them. And this is the only thing which matters in the end.

Suggesting that Uncharted is nothing but a presenation is moronic.

Hell, even games like Heavy Rain are more than a presentation. although much more so than UC.

I'm astonished anyone even suggested this and won't even entertain a proper rebuttal. Just a stupid, stupid thing to say.

dsgrue3 said:



d21lewis said:
And that's the thing, to me.  These days, we get so many people gushing over these "games" that place so much emphasis on graphical achievement, mind blowing set pieces, and breakthrough technology instead of gameplay (and yes, I am aware that games can have both--not directed at you, FOX, just anybody else who's ready to pounce on me.).  When you look at games of the past, the ones that stand out as timeless aren't the ones that broke new ground graphically.  They're the ones that got gameplay down pat.  Your Super Mario World, Street Fighters, Tetris, Pac Man, Link to the Past, etc..
Loving a game based solely on presentation (which, let's face it, is what Uncharted does best) is like loving a woman based solely on her outer beauty.  You can overlook a LOT of flaws because the outside is so good looking but, over time, the beauty is going to fade.  Prettier things will catch your eye.  Then, you realize that what you fell in love with was really quite shallow to begin with.
Make a game first and focus on presentation second.  That's how you create a timeless classic.  Ten years from now, I would probably rather play Prince of Persia on Gamecube than Uncharted on PS3.  One will still be a game.  The other will be an outdated movie.




Suggesting that Uncharted is nothing but a presenation is moronic.
Hell, even games like Heavy Rain are more than a presentation. although much more so than UC.
I'm astonished anyone even suggested this and won't even entertain a proper rebuttal. Just a stupid, stupid thing to say.

Okay. I respect your opinion.

everyone is entitled to their own opinion but how anyone could call gameplay like this movielike is beyond me honestly

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMOyJNUx_Q0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIMngHuL7is

sure the sp can be restrictive at times but if anyone is looking for just raw gameplay there's coop and competitive multiplayer

gameplay within these modes so far has imo been unrivaled in most other games i've seen imo

personally i think the people that say so just suck at mp games because honestly if you're just looking for raw gameplay and nothing else then your priority should be mp games or modes

edit: btw i have never liked the uncharted series because of set pieces or graphics i have always liked it because of the gameplay

The ways that matter to you personally or the ways that matter in general?

I never played multiplayer.  :(