I was with you until bad encounter design. I don't agree with that. Sure it slides into standard cover shooting at times, but most of the shootouts not in the final hour were very well done. I find U2 to be head and shoulders above both 1 + 3 in that aspect.
Most of the time, there's very little encouragement for the player to move in Uncharted 2, which I find problematic, especially considering Nate's mobility.
The game only seems to want the player to move somewhere when it has a scripted event for the player to watch (the helicopter knocking over the building, for instance). Other than that, it generally says "you, sit here, wait for the enemies to come, and kill them." Even my favorite sequence, the hanging-from-a-sign-while-enemies-pop-out-on-multiple-sides bit, is just "sit here, wait for enemies to come, and shoot at them."
Name some games with better characters, narrative, writing and voice acting in a similar genre? For me, and for more people than I've seen for any other game on GAF, it is Game of the generation. And a lot of critics agree.
http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/uncharted-2-among-thieves
You're doing a very typical thing which is to apply far far harsher and more nit picky criteria to games not ordinarily on your platform of choice. The reality is that Uncharted 2 is among the top of it's peers when it comes to video games.
I disagree with your assessment of me. Uncharted 2 could be a PC game and I'd still criticize it. I've applied harsher criticisms to other games (a 1,400 word essay on why Halo 4 is missing an entire story act, and how this completely ruins the game, for instance). Additionally, criticizing =/= nitpicking. Nitpicking is finding problems for the sake of finding problems; it's not nitpicking to complain that a shooter is making the player remain stationary in combat, nor is it nitpicking to express frustration that the enemy AI can see you through walls (and tell if you're reloading!), nor is it nitpicking to complain about how the game half-heartedly tries to make some "point" about games and violence in a game that's deliberately trying to be a fun adventure romp (it works against the rest of the game's narrative), or anything like that. These are serious criticisms.
Nobody else is really
making swashbuckling adventure games, so there's not a lot to compare it to. The same's true of Mass Effect 2 and 3. Bad games, weak characters, break a lot of narrative conventions, have some major issues in terms of level design and shooting--but nobody's out there making space RPGs either, so I can't really compare them to anything.
Furthermore, you can't defend something bad by saying "well, nobody else in gaming is doing it better," or "there's nothing like it, so it's okay." That's absurd, and logically fallacious. I can point to plenty of games with better characterization (System Shock 2 immediately leaps to mind. Marathon: Infinity's a great choice. Planescape: Torment gives just about anything a run for its money. Etc), plenty of shooters with better shooting, plenty of platformers with better platforming, and plenty of puzzlers with better puzzling. I can suss out from these games how a good synthesis of these experiences should come together.
Also, appeal to popular opinion? Also a logical fallacy.
You're more than welcome to criticize my criticisms, but to resort to the common (and rarely accurate) "you're nitpicking" defense, logical fallacies, and so forth is all rather silly.