Uncharted 4's gameplay: Walking, climbing, jumping and talking, with some shooting in between... Oh, and sometimes you can drive a boat or a jeep. Super. Like i said, the game is fun, but great and varied gameplay?? Please...

And i don't think being simple is bad. Take Doom 2016 gameplay for example. All you do is run around shooting everything. But there's a complex system of varied enemies, different kinds of weapons and utilities, and a great sense of movement and speed to support the shooty shooty aspect. The game is great and it doesn't care too much about it's plot to keep it shoving everything down the player's throat, and in turn, compromise the gameplay with it. The main focus is giving control to everything you can do and let you run with it.

Uncharted 4 is all about telling a story, which is nice and fun, but the gameplay bits between each plot piece are just there to keep the whole thing together. They are not the main focus. So whenever you're shooting or climbing, that's all you're really doing, there's not much to it. The different types of enemies (i.e. Heavy armored, snipers, shotgunners) don't change your strategy that much, and whatever weapon you're holding is more than enough to finish the job (i finished the whole thing on hard and auto aim turned off, mind you). Though the game does open up near the end, and shootouts get bigger and give more room to the player, they're still so spaced between the climbing, jumping, talking and sometimes driving, that i cant really say that it redeems the game bloated pacing. The big setpieces like the car chase is fun to play and specially watch, but those comprise a small portion of the game to summarise the gameplay as a whole.

I did have fun with Uncharted 4. Recommend it to anyone who has a PS4 to play at least once. But great gameplay it has not.

Why? People don't claim games are "the best as of that time" they claim them to be "the best of all time". If people are claiming something to be the best "of all time" then it really should be able to hold up favourably compared to more recent games as well. I've never got why people insist on giving credit for doing something first. IMO doing something better is much more important than doing it first.

That said, I personally wouldn't really rate a game down for it's graphics unless they really are atrocious anyway, so on the graphical side at least I don't think it should matter anyway whether it's outdated or not.

Those shoddy design decisions you call them might be shoddy compared to later games. But at it's time it was the best you could do. And this is the whole point I came up with in the beginning which you clearly don't seem to understand. You have to rate a game at the time it comes out. Can you name me a game that had for example better graphics than OoT when it came out?

Well, clearly not. I literally just said that I didn't

I really don't see why that's strange anyway. If a game was enjoyable one time but isn't any more then I don't think it deserves to be rated very highly at all. All of my favourite older games I've replayed and still enjoyed, and if I haven't I've altered my ratings for them. eg. last year I replayed GTA 3/VC/SA/4 and had to give a lot more credit to 4 than I used to since it's held up very well while San Andreas (and before), just weren't as good as I remembered them.

And yes I would say Sunshine should be rated higer, I've never actually played either. But one is a 2d platformer and I think 2d platformers are absolute shite so I'd easily rate the 3d platformer higher.

No, you absolutely don't "have" to take graphics into account. If you want to, fine. But to me they mean little compared to gameplay/story. Some of my favourite games of all time are even text sims. Good graphics don't make a good game.

We get it, you REALLY like Ocarina of Time and are personally offended by the idea that it's not perfect. 

And no, If something doesn't work, you change it. The bad design decisions should have been fixed because some things don't work in 3D. As Egoraptor said, if the formula doesn't work, you change the formula. You don't get a free pass just for being the first of your kind. 

Also, dude, stop harping on about graphics. You seem fixated on arguing against my assessment that the graphics looked bad, so much so that you're still not giving counter-arguments to my criticisms about its gameplay and design aspects. It's clear you know you're wrong or don't have an answer, so you're arguing unrelated points to sound like you have a point, but you don't. 

I don't care about the graphics. I think they suck, but that's not why I hate the game. 

I don't care about the graphics. I think they suck, but that's not why I hate the game. 

I don't care about the graphics. I think they suck, but that's not why I hate the game. 

I don't care about the graphics. I think they suck, but that's not why I hate the game. 

I don't care about the graphics. I think they suck, but that's not why I hate the game. 

I don't care about the graphics. I think they suck, but that's not why I hate the game. 

How many times do I have to tell you this to get you to stop fixating on it? 

I don't care about the graphics. I think they suck, but that's not why I hate the game. 

I don't care about the graphics. I think they suck, but that's not why I hate the game. 

I don't care about the graphics. I think they suck, but that's not why I hate the game. 

I don't care about the graphics. I think they suck, but that's not why I hate the game. 

I don't care about the graphics. I think they suck, but that's not why I hate the game. 

I don't care about the graphics. I think they suck, but that's not why I hate the game. 

Is that enough? Have I gotten it through your thick skull yet? Have you deciphered the subtlety and nuance of my argument yet? 

For the sake of argument, I can give you plenty of games that looked better and held up better on previous generation hardware. Hell, A Link to the Past still looks and plays perfectly. Sure, the graphics are simpler 2D sprites and they're not as technically impressive, but they still look good today. Super Mario RPG looked better than Ocarina of Time (And/or Mario 64). Yoshi's Island - which I just finished a couple days ago) Still looks wonderful today despite its graphics being simple and 2D. The Donkey Kong Country trilogy all looked better, too. Why? Because they were working within the limitations of the hardware and focused more on making the most out of what they had instead of going for 3D when the console just couldn't handle 3D all that well. 

Again, it's a limitation of the medium and all that, and I'm not saying the game is poor because of it, but you can't look at Ocarina of Time's 3D models and say they still look good today, but you can say that about Link to the Past's 2D Sprites. I can't stand any of the models from N64 or PS1 era games, and I think virtually all of the 3D games from that era look terrible, because the technology was good enough to make 3D work, but not make it work very well. 

I don't care about the graphics. I think they suck, but that's not why I hate the game. 

Nintendo knows all about everything I'm writing here because they knew back in the SNES days that Yoshi's Island would look good forever due to its aesthetic choices, and they seemed to know what they were doing when Wind Waker was released because that's a Gamecube game that holds up well today and is still more expressive and well animated than most modern games. the N64 was the dead zone where everyone was jumping on 3D gaming before anyone could really do 3D Gaming well. As such, all of the games from that era have an aura of importance because they were the first, which is a shame because that era has virtually never done graphics or gameplay best, yet people look back fondly upon the era with nostalgia because it was the first in many respects. The first to do 3D, the first generation many adult gamers played, etc. 

I don't care about the graphics. I think they suck, but that's not why I hate the game. 

I don't care about the graphics. I think they suck, but that's not why I hate the game. 

I don't care about the graphics. I think they suck, but that's not why I hate the game. 

Do you get it now? Can I put this argument to rest so you'll stop inundating my VGCBuddy with your inane responses? Can we stop talking about the graphics that you are so infatuated with defending and instead move onto talking about the ways the gameplay was fundamentally flawed? Can we talk about bad cameras and unfair ambushes and the shitty controller? Can we talk about the stupid waiting mechanics? Can we talk about poor conveyance? Can we talk about needless design decisions that do nothing to make the game more accessible? Can we stop devaluing people's opinions because they disagree or because you perceive them to suck at games? (Seriously, there are few things worse than a person who disregards game criticism because he feels the critic just needs to 'git gud'. that's a reductive argument and needs to die.) 

I don't care about the graphics. I think they suck, but that's not why I hate the game. Are we done here? 

I'm not talking about review scores or anything like that. But placements in any kind of "greatest game of all time lists" absolutely should be re-evaluated as time goes on with games moving up/down depending on how well they age.

You know I live in Brazil, don't you?

Also I can't get PAL versions as I'll most definitely get an US or Brazillian N64 when I do.