The whole focus on 'violence' is a misnomer... conflict drives all gameplay, and the easiest conflict to resolve on a gamepad is physical, human struggle. Then there's leaping across shit and timing your jumps, there's driving vehicles at fast speeds, but largely physical combat has the most diversity in controller use (which is what actually defines an 'action' game). They're making an action game with elements of adventure and RPG, they're not making an RPG based primarily around maxing out your hunger and health bars. It doesn't make sense to judge an Uncharted clone on how much of a survival RPG it is any more than it would be to judge that survival RPG by how good the third person shooting is.
I don't necessarily think the first part is true, that's just lack of imagination. But my point wasn't to judge Tomb Raider as something it's not, but speculate what it could have been. Because I just don't necessarily buy the "well, we have guns in the game so we obviously have to give you a bunch of stuff to shoot", and most of the things I was looking forward to about this Tomb Raider was the ideas brought forth when the game was announced. That being said, I don't have anything against an Uncharted clone (unless every enemy encounter is a "let's stay here for 15 minutes shooting dudes coming from their holes until we can move on"), and I have no issue looking past the combat in order to enjoy a good story (that's what I do with Uncharted). I was merely speculating how they could have focused the game in order to lessen the disconnect.