Re: "These games are too different to compare"
Climbing is fundamentally different between the two, yet what's being compared is the way each game uses their climbing.
Uncharted's is automated so that the player can feasibly traverse an environment while in a shootout (while in a train, in collapsing buildings, jumping from truck to truck, etc.).
Zelda's is meant to allow exploration that feeds into free-form overall progression. There's almost always items/shrines atop a given mountain and those items can help you get stronger to reach new places.
Uncharted frequently has climbing that isn't mixed with any combat or action, and the only thing going on besides the scripted climbing is linear conversation with an NPC. These moments don't always provide further insight into the story or character motivations, and when there's no spatial puzzle or pathfinding the player has to do, it's just a matter of going through the motions along a set path. A lot of people don't find that engaging, and it happens a lot through 4even when there is some story development going on, not everyone is going to enjoy the story or characters, or think that those are worth so much focus.
In Zelda, the core act of climbing a high structure always has the threat of falling, which leads to losing progress or a game over. The player gets to choose when and where they climb, and the risk and frequent rewards for climbing are more likely to matter to the player than character dialogue or pretty scenery.
I see lots of people cite climbing and traversing in Zelda as a highlight whereas people point it out as a negative in Uncharted, and I attribute that to how the two are used in their respective games.