Tomb Raider Gets A Next-Gen Facelift

Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition will come to PS4 and Xbox One by the end of January, updating this year's Tomb Raider reboot for the next-gen platforms. A specific date was not announced.

Camilla Luddington, the voice of Lara Croft and Scott Amos of developer Crystal Dynamics introduced the game at the Spike VGX, touting the higher polish that next-generation systems will bring to this edition.


    so tomb raider with like 10% better graphics.

      Or like, graphics almost as good as the PC version...

        It's going to be hard for me to justify getting the console version just because when it's always 10 bucks on steam.

          Absolutely. Just picked up ALL the DLC for 3 dollars during the last sale, it'll be that price again the next sale. Got the game for 15 on a deal on Greenman a few months back. Incredible value. "Next gen version"? What "Next gen version"?

            There was DLC for Tomb Raider?? Must go to steam now. I was thinking of doing a replay. Really enjoyed it.

          Yeah I find that too. I want to play Grid 2 on PS3, because it seems like more of a console genre, but it was $12 on steam, but $60 on PS3.

          So I bought it on steam. this happens a lot these days. I WANT to use my console more, but the games are cheaper, run better and look prettier on my PC.

            Grid 2 is actually free on PS+ at the moment.

              You have to pay for PS+ though, so it's not free.

              Yeh but that requires signing up to PS+. Which will cost more than $12 in the long run.

              No argument that PS+ is not a great deal though. It is.

                Yeah, but let's say PS+ costs $70 a year. With (at least) 2 free games a month that's 24 games a year, averaging out at roughly $3 a game. Even if they are "rented" it's still too good a value to miss out on, I think anyway.

                  But that's the rub, for people like me, who have a limited playing time, I simply don't have time to play all those games. So I haven't got PS+ because of the feeling that I'd be wouldn't be getting good value out of it.

                  It's just the mindset I'm stuck in. I'm 33 now, been gaming hardcore since I was 14, and I'm really starting to notice the time that I've thrown away on games in my life. If i'd been practising some kind of saleable skill for that long, I'd be one of the best in the world by now. But I'm nowhere near being the best gamer in my suburb! (okay maybe in the suburb, definitely not the city).

                  So I only buy a game every now and then that I'm 98% certain that I'll love, I get it for a bargain price, and I play it completely. Then, if it's good, it goes into the collection, if not, it gets put on ebay.

                  @rowan Yeah. PS+ is good value but the reality is they aren't free games because I have to pay for PS+. If I wanted to play them I'd probably pay full price closer to launch. If I had infinite time and not much money it'd be the way to go, and I'm not denying it's a great deal, but personally they're games that I either don't want to play, don't have time to play or have already played.

    You should review the PC version and claim "exclusive first look at next gen tomb raider".

    But does it look better than the PC version?

      It won't if assassins creed 4 is anything to go by.

        Just a few things. Some of those tests haven't even had AC4 cranked up to max. Some of them outright stated they only put it on msaax4 to make it 'equal to the consoles'. That's just bullshit. It should be cranked up to absolute *maximum* for PC.

        AC4 also supports 4k textures. Let's see it running maximum in 4k, THEN compare it to the consoles and see how it looks? Which noone seems to have done yet...

          Provided they're running in on an AU$550 PC, then yeah.

            I don't think that's really relevant. If you're gonna compare games running, the PS4 and Xbox One obviously output at their best, so you should show the PC output at its best. No point comparing it at medium settings or so? I mean, logically that wouldn't make any sense whatsoever?

              It's relevent in the fact that if you are in the market for a console, then a pc comparison at console price will show how valuable your money is on pc.

              By all means max a pc after the fact so you can play with your dick, but maxing a pc is not really relavent to a console at all.

                I don't think that's relevant at all.

                That's equivelant to saying 'Hey lets compare Xbox One and PS4 but only to something that gets scaled down to it because you know, everything should be scaled down to it...'

                No. By that right, you shouldn't even compare the Xbox One to the PS4, after all it's 50 dollars more expensive right? You choose the PC because the PC offers the best, most powerful platform to play a game on.

                You don't choose it because it 'saves your money' like a console does. You buy a Titan card? Show that bitch off and what it can do. You don't say 'Oh I'll show you my titan card.... ON MEDIUM SETTINGS!' Same as you wouldn't buy a Lamborghini, take it to the racetrack against a BA Falcon and a Volkswagon and say 'Ok guys, I'm only gonna do 80 in this... just to make shit fair.' No, you're gonna blitz.

                It's not 'pulling out your dick', it's stopping crippling yourself just so the two lesser runners in the race can catch up...

                Last edited 08/12/13 10:34 pm

                  I actually think both of you are right in ways. I don't think it hurts to have a comparison that shows the next gen (now current gen?) consoles (slip Wii U in there for fairness' sake), and then also have two PC comparisons; one with a PC at a cost comparable to the consoles, and one that's an absolute beast of a PC built specifically for gaming and has the latest hardware. That way you get PC comparisons for both standard PC setups and hardcore gaming setups. Best of both worlds!

                  Comparison videos against PCs are always kind of pointless. Of course a max specced PC is going to look better, and of course a Lamborghini is faster than a Falcon, but it also costs way more.

                  Obviously in an ideal world, you could run a comparison between a console and your exact PC, but that's not really feasible.

                  You choose the PC because the PC offers the best, most powerful platform to play a game on.

                  No it isn't. The PC is just one platform. There is no best platform.

                  Gamers play for the games, not for the hardware.

                  @Wisehacker so a pc with the latest hardware doesn't offer a more powerful platform to play a game on? O_o

                  @weresmurf: I hate to quote from the Austin Powers movies (shudder) but there is a phrase which fits best here.

                  "It's not the size, mate. It's how you use it."

                  Same goes for gaming. It does not matter how much hardware the platform has. If no-one is looking at it and find the best ways to use it then it's just techno-waste.

                  PCs are also at a disadvantage because the platform has more configurations than there are transistors in the CPU. And on top of that, PCs are not specialised architectures so there is a performance penalty.

                  Console may not have the size/scale of hardware but then again they don't need that size/scale. They use specialised architectures and the platform is well mapped. That means it is possible to make games play just well as on consoles as they do a PC.

                  To say that PCs are the best of the platforms only shows you as a hardware fanboy and not a serious gamer. A serious gamer cares nuts to the platform and plays for the game, not the pixels.

                  Last edited 09/12/13 12:56 pm

              So it should be shown on a dual Xeon PC with 2 Titans in SLI?

          Just to clarify my comment (some people seem to have read it backwards) I've got the PC version my brother has the ps4 version they both look great but PC definitely has the edge especially if you can max it.

            Indeed. I think one or two people have gotten a little defensive. All versions, even the ps3 and 360 and Wii U, look outstanding. They've accomplished something fantastic on *all* consoles. Simple fact is, (insert *well DUH* here) that with the hardware a PC is capable of, which outdoes any console, the PC version has the capability when maxed out, to look amazing. My main point, was that if they're going to compare versions, they should compare versions at their maximum quality, not at a nerfed quality. There's zero point to doing so.

              My main point, was that if they're going to compare versions, they should compare versions at their maximum quality, not at a nerfed quality.

              No, you are trying to restrict the scope of comparison so make the PC look better. Graphics are the icing and have little to no weight in the big scheme of things when it comes to games.

                Really? So why has 95% of the focus on next gen games been about the graphics?

                  Because the industry has become so blind to what is important that it's only going to take something akin to the 1983 video game crash to wake the publishers up.

                  Graphics are important to a game, it's why people want to have games that look 'new and amazing' or 'old and retro'. It's a misnomer that graphics are not important. It's when gameplay and other elements are forsaken so that graphics can look amazing (BF3...) that is when it's truly a bad thing. There is a benefit to having great graphics in a game, that is immersion. A great story + great sound + great voice acting + great graphics can deliver an amazing package. One fault along that chain can cause a great product to become merely 'ok'. However, granted, graphics are indeed the 'least' important of the lot, they are not unimportant. I just spent yesterday playing STARBOUND, a game revelling in its pixelart, I believe it's the spiritual successor to Terraria, graphically it's leaps and bounds ahead of Terraria, but gameplay it's in alpha, so it's still lacking a little. Graphically it's amazing and that's what grabbed me initially. The gameplay elements slowly revealed themselves but everything gelled together in a nice little package that showed it had all been worked on equally.

                  So when everything has been worked on well, then graphics are *definitely* important. However a developer should never forsake any other element for them. But, in this day and age, I would'nt want to be playing GRAN TURISMO 7 if it looked like Ataris NIGHT DRIVER even if it had amazing gameplay would you?

    I really don't think this is necessary. The people that wanted to play this game, most likely already have. In terms of hardware, I honestly don't think it will make the game all that prettier.

      Yeah I think it's unnecessary too. I would like to think their reasoning could be that since any sequels they make will be on what is now current gen they want to have the first game available on ps4 and xbox one too....The real reason is probably money since if I recall correctly, the hardware on the new consoles should allow them to essentially just port the PC version over, call it an update and have the people who really enjoyed the game throw money at them.

      It's Square Enix, what can you expect?


      It's last gen for the master race among us.

        You know what the real master race is? The platform agnostics; those who enjoying playing games on all platforms and don't sit in their ivory tower trying to take a dump on those who didn't also exclusively choose their same platform of choice. Food for thought there.

          The internet is all in fun buddy, no need to get your panties in a bunch!

          Completely off topic, but what's the term in Harry Potter for wizards with one muggle parent?

            My apologies, I didn't realise you were just having fun with it. It can be quite hard to tell around here sometimes.

            From what I'm being told, wizards with one muggle parent are just called half-bloods. It might be the term Mudblood you were looking for though, which is a wizard born with both parents being muggles.

    No PC release? If not graphics, DLC?

    Wait, is there any DLCs that add story content? Otherwise I might give this a miss, even if it comes on PC.

      They don't really need a PC re-release; the game's already on PC, and it looks pretty good if you crank the graphics all the way up.

      So far, there hasn't been any story DLC released for the game.

        No stroy DLC, but it's supposed to come with more outfits for Lara, according to IGN.

          The fact that it's Square Enix makes me think at least one of those outfits will be a bikini.

            Here we go:
            I'd say that this (except for the purchasable skill tree upgrades) is going to be in the next-gen version. Has pictures of the different costumes.

    I'd be happy to recommend this to anyone who hasn't played it if it looks as good as the PC on Ultra. I thought the game was epic at the highest settings, especially the fire simulation.

      There is more to gaming than graphics.

      As I said years ago, graphics is only the icing on the cake when it comes to games. It doesn't matter how good the icing is if the filling is old corn chips and 'I can't believe it's not butter'.

      Game play wise (the most important part) the game is pretty sound and I see no benefit of putting the game on newer consoles other than the publishers trying to increase the market range.

      If I remember right, the game failed to meet expectations sales wise (Squenix wanted 10+ million copies sold in the initial period but only got 6.5 million from memory) so the publisher is probably trying to make a quick cash grab instead of making a new IP for the consoles.

    TR was a fun game but it's not worth full price for better graphics. It's cheap as chips on PC at times too. No doubt it'll be featured in Steam's Christmas Sale.

    Why? The game was okay... But is it really worth a facelift? It looks decent enough on the last-gen consoles.
    Oh well - I suppose if there's an option to pay like 10 bucks to upgrade it can't hurt.

    I loved the game on PS3 and have been a TR nutter for over 15 years, i'll def get this.

    How about someone make some next gen games for our next gen consoles, I have 7 games on my ps4 and I consider all of them to be last gen with a slight graphical improvement. Don't get me wrong I love the game, just getting tired of all the damn remakes. If we get the option to upgrade the ps3 version for cheap I'll be slightly less annoyed :P

    Last edited 09/12/13 9:54 am

    How about someone make some next gen games for our next gen consoles

    That implies publishers are willing to take risks instead of taking safe paths (CoD, etc).

    My guess is the original version of the game didn't meet the expected sales targets so the publisher is trying again with the consoles.

      This was meant to be a response to @gutsoup but for some reason the reply became a new discussion.

      yeah it's a real shame, I don't want any good studios to sink but someone needs to take the leap.

        What we really need is another 1983 game crash to wake publishers up and make them take the needed risks.

    Did anyone else kind of find Lara attractive in this game and then feel a bit strange about that. Or maybe it was just the voice acting and knowing the actress from her role on Californication.


      Given that Lara Croft has been gaming's most prominent sex symbol for over a decade, I don't think it's that odd.

      Also, never made the link to Californication, but of course that's where I've heard the voice before!

    PC Master Race here. Been playing this "next-gen port" for awhile now. In full stereoscopic 3D no less! Looks incredible! ;)

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now