I've never really got the whole mass murderer grievance (I mean, I get it - it's just not something that registers with me when playing either franchise).  In the first TR you were mostly wiping out indigenous wildlife iirc - wolves, bears, possibly the last remaining Tyrannosaur - but it was always something I viewed as a shooter adventure.  Likewise the first Uncharted was particularly heavy on the shooting gallery bottlenecks where you ironed out waves of bad soldiers.  I don't want a pacifist adventure from either franchise, nor do I need the realism of the cutscenes to necessarily bleed into the action itself.  I do enjoy the cinematic Uncharted experience but I'm fine with Drake keeping the moral compass in his napsack when it comes to the (still essential imo) shooty bits.  If another inspired-by Indiana Jones game appears with a tranq dart toting hero there's a chance I'll be up for taking a look, but both these franchises started as games where you explored areas while shooting everything that moved. 

My advice fwiw - just go with it, the disconnect makes it work as a videogame.  I'm not convinced some of the complainers would be enamoured with the alternatives they crave.

Would you want 8hrs of cliff faces and buses hanging over precipices though?  For 'scape.  Fun as those sections are they're just route finding, especially in Uncharted.  The shooting breaks it up for me, preventing either the yin or yang from getting tiresome.  I never got the 'FFS not again' feeling when approaching a combat section with Drake, if anything I thought there weren't enough of them in U4.

I'm with Kow on this give me a shorter game then. Tbf if shooting has to happen, then i would rather the protagonist didnt directly kill the enemy. Rather they were killed/mamed by the environment by one of your actions. This would improve the shooting aspects and add some dark humour into it.

See a camp of enemies in your way. Throw a feshly killed rabbit into the camp and make sure the nearby grizzy bear realizes. Or shoot a branch off a tree which hits the enemy and knocks them out. Anything other than mindless dull shooting.

Or if you really really need to keep shooting in the games. Have less enemies but make it like Manhunt where you have no choice but to kill them, but it needs to be hard to kill them, these people are trained hunters. Not a popup shooting gallery but a hitman who is trailling lara/nathan. That would be intetesting.

Put me in the "keep the formula the same, same amount of climbing to shooting sections, but lower the number of enemies you face in each section by like a third or something" camp.

Why have three waves of ten enemies or whatever when two waves of five would do? Make them hit harder but take fewer bullets too, no more Uncharted 1 style cha-cha slide dance moves as I pump rounds into a guy who's only protection is a cotton vest, and give them much increased aim when they're in a flanking position, forcing you to react to their movements more

I have two hour games I haven't managed to finish so a ten hour game seems like pretty good value to me.

The shooting would be better in these games if the AI was actually worth a wank, and they certainly need to thin the numbers down. Less bad guys to each encounter, and make them actually fun to fight like the elites in Halo on legendary.

As much as The Last of Us 2 gets grief for exactly this problem, you should really play the Encounter mode out of context of the story and you'll get some tight as fuck combat scenarios on the harder difficulties - with the assists turned off. I think ND are best in class here, but in the context of the story, it all falls apart.

The main characters bloodlust in these types of games is a problem for sure.

Based on some of that I'd say there's a pretty good chance you'd enjoy Call of the Sea.

Moot_Geeza wrote:

Based on some of that I'd say there's a pretty good chance you'd enjoy Call of the Sea.

I was gonna say the exact same thing.

acemuzzy wrote:

Submerged (PC)

You know when people play Uncharted / Tomb Raider and be all like "why is there shooting - give me this game but without the shooting - well it turns out it's not all that after all. Obviously production values rather lower than those two franchises, but that's the basic premise here - and it's all just painfully samey. Like 10 fetch quests in a row, albeit with moderately interesting architecture to assail to get them, and some nice vistas/scenery (and some excellent music to be fair - probably the main actual highlight), and you've kind of seen it all after the first two. Only carried on in the hope of some variety (which never came) or story arc (likewise - the main fetch ceremony was literally the same for all ten, and the art-snippet driven narration was hard to properly understand, and the baddies/goodies were decidedly meh too). So yeah, I fear it has to be a [6], though there's probably the makings of a 7 somewhere within, with a bit more animation and polish and things that are actually different to do...

Verecocha wrote:

stonechalice wrote:

Moot_Geeza wrote:

Based on some of that I'd say there's a pretty good chance you'd enjoy Call of the Sea.

I was gonna say the exact same thing.

I literally fell asleep trying to play that...

Same here. Boring as all hell.

Fwiw I mostly hated it, but it reviewed quite well and a few badgers enjoyed it.

Being serious for an odd post, I do understand both combat viewpoints. My favourite Raiders are Underworld and the original, which are probably the lightest on shooting in the series. Exploratory gameplay's great, it's just that there hasn't been a satisfying replacement for gunplay yet, even though we're certain it shouldn't be that hard.

I fell in love with Uncharted 2 with its multiplayer beta, and then treated its singleplayer as a funfair for pretty pictures and practice before returning to its full-fat MP. Criminally overlooked (best team-based tactical shooter IMO), it set Naughty Dog off down the path of needless tinkering, making each new MP worse, when it was always the players who were wrong!

Anyway, U2's singleplayer had a better-than-average daft videogame story (mocap improved a bunch around then), but I think it's back-to-front to diss it on those grounds when its MP was its real triumph by miles. Whoever coded its aiming did a fantastic job; so much so that I don't think it's ever been matched by another TPS.

Just really old-school, brains-led tactical gameplay, but with graphics from the dawn of the generally less immersive now. Graphics have improved so much since the '90s, but as we know sadly too well, our interactions with games haven't progressed half as much.

Maybe that's actually the best argument for creating a combatless Raider? Feels like we were closer to that possibility in the bedroom days.

I cant put my finger on it, but Tomb Raider 1 (of the current trilogy) was a fantastic game. It had that, let me see whats next, I'll play alittle longer before going to bed addictiveness to it. RISE i found abit boring so never completed it. SHADOW is starting to feel like paint by numbers, i may give it another evening, but im not sure im gonna complete this. I may have had enough already.

Its a shame as it started out so well, with a evening Day of the Dead festival in a town. I would have liked the game to have remained there for awhile, exploring, doing some tasks maybe. Just tskin in the atmosphere and ambiance. However it does last long then
Not sure how far i am into the game, got to the trial of the eagle puzzle, that i was too tired to try to workout last night. Whatever magic sauce was spilt over TB1 has definitely been missing with RISE and SHADOW.