I'm not saying he's right about the whole thing.
Oh he drools all over the ginormous awesomeness of R3, which I haven't played yet but heard is inferior to the others from regular gamers, but they are some good points scattered about the piece. Like why the heck pull resistance from Bend, who wanted to make the vita version, had proven themselves, and then force them to make Uncharted....although the answer is obvious: Uncharted sells better. All about the Benjamin's
There wasn't anything wrong with R3. It was a sold game, with good art direction, level design, and a nice, but sparse story. I think most people were frustrated because it stepped away from the story established in 1&2 (which was fine by me!)
What I liked about the first game was the "David and Goliath" / "Histories Mysteries" feeling. I liked the fake historical summary approach the first game had (until about halfway through when it disappeared). They threw that away in the 2nd game and went with a generic video game trope "super soldier" concept that only really redeemed itself with how they handled the end of the game. It stood on it's own based on the scale of some of it's bosses and the gameplay- but other series quickly caught up with that "epic boss" technology and it would have been unimpressive if they had continued down that path.
3 kind of reclaims that feeling of fighting an unwinnable war. That's why I enjoyed it.
The consistent element to all 3 console games is the focus on recreating the feeling of the era along with familiar locals across Europe and North America. It feels like the developer of the portables either failed to focus on that, or the processing power needed for the handheld games really keeps them from being able to achieve this.