High-Definition Tomb Raider Trilogy Gunning To PlayStation 3

By Ishaan . December 19, 2010 . 7:32pm

So many HD collections, so many wallets destroyed. First, Sony announced an Ico and Shadow of the Colossus HD pack for PlayStation 3. Then, Ubisoft announced the Prince of Persia trilogy. Now, Crystal Dynamics have confirmed a Tomb Raider trilogy.


The confirmation comes by way of Karl Stewart, Global Brand Director for Crystal Dynamics, on his Twitter feed:


“Yes, it’s official. #TombRaider PS3 ‘Trilogy’ pack coming in the new year. Full details next week. Watch this space.”


Stewart made the post after noticing a report by Joystiq, who came across a listing for Tomb Raider Trilogy on Amazon.de. The Tomb Raider Trilogy will contain Tomb Raider Legend, Tomb Raider Anniversary and Tomb Raider Underworld. The first two weren’t originally on the PlayStation 3, and will get a high-definition makeover.


It should be noted that Tomb Raider Anniversary was originally on PlayStation 2, Windows, Wii and Xbox 360, and so was Tomb Raider: Legend (just swap the Wii out for the Gamecube). We’re not sure which builds Crystal Dynamics will use for the Trilogy pack, but we should know more in the coming days.

  • mikanko

    Hopefully the ports of Legend and Anniversary are handled better than the Xbox 360 releases. Anniversary especially had incredibad slowdown in the larger areas, and compared pretty poorly to the other iterations of the game because of it.

    • Yusaku_Matsuda70s

      Reduced framerate, screen tear, and general slowdown is commonplace in PS3 ports of 360 games, so I’d be surprised if Anniversary doesn’t have even more slowdown than the 360 version. They might be better off in that aspect if they ported the PS2 version instead.

      • Testsubject909

        I’d argue reduced framerate, screen tears and slowdowns are typical in ANY port.

        When a game is first made for the PS3, it suffers on the 360. The same goes vice versa. It’s basically putting the A team and effort unto the first console and THEN trying to convert everything over to the other side, sometimes even using the B team (look at Platinum and Sega’s Bayonetta for exemple.)

        If on the other hand they aim for a multiplatform, work on the strength of both consoles as opposed to just porting back and forth, then both game will shine wonderfully.

        An odd exemple I can provide which doesn’t really work too well, but still can, is Ninja Gaiden 2 and Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2.

        I know, it’s not exactly a multiplatform game, they’re two individual games… But let’s remove the superfluous things then. Remove the additional characters and modes from Sigma 2, and as for the weapons that were added, weapons were removed from the PS3 game as well so the end result actually balances itself out.

        So just consider those weapons “Console exclusives”. Now, we go to the barebone basics of how this exact same game took advantage of the console’s strengths. The texture is clearly superior on the PS3, what with more space on the disc available for higher resolution textures. On the other hand, the 360 can handle more polygons and it shows in larger amount of enemies which has it’s own visual impact.

        Both games were tweaked in different manner to properly balance the difficulty and make the game challenging.

        And in the end, both games are excellent, wonderful addition for either end, can be compared further then just “Ew, it’s slower by 2FPS” or “It has screen tearing if you do this specific camera motion during that one specific special attack when there’s 20 enemies on screen, something that only happens a few times”.

        And instead turns it into a proper debate over “Which version would I prefer? One looks prettier but the other has more stuff packed in. This one has wonderful looking buildings and ground texture, but the other one has realistic tall grass and more animals flying around making use of the polygons. One has this weapon that’s awesome, but the other has that weapon which is awesome too!”

        Oh and, if you couldn’t tell. I’m sick of Multiplatform comparisons.

        The complaints are always minor. The screen tearing is so minuscule most of the time that it’s saddening that anyone makes a big deal of it. Framerate issues are typically unimportant. The big fuss over 60FPS is ridiculous (you don’t see me complaining that the silver screen movies plays only at 28FPS rather then 29FPS). And general slowdown occurs on both ends anyways.

        And then there’s the stupid complaints over installation. Some people state an advantage for the 360 is that you don’t have to install the game sometimes, but then complain about loading issues, which is what installing helps reduce.

        I swear. Gamers nowadays are a bunch of sissies…

        • Guest159

          Bump. See top of the page for an update.

  • Finally we can play these Tomb Raiders on our powerful playstation 3s. The splitting of the games across the systems just was weird to me because it didnt make sense and kept playstation owners from playing it. Its not like the PS3’s were so few at their releases…

    • Testsubject909

      Is it really worth it?

      Legend’s graphic was pretty low-to-average, even at it’s time. Having it on the PS3 was obviously out of the question. Tomb Raider Anniversary’s graphics were a bit better, but Lara was still going to be neck deep in the uncanny valley if she made it unto the PS3.

      And as for Underworld, it was cute to look at, but the game kinda sucked.

      Seriously, if you didn’t play those games, unless you threw out your PS2… Just buy Anniversary, skip legends and skip underworld. It’s not worth the pretty graphics and buying three games just so you can play the only arguably worthwhile one is just plainly silly (if you’re gunning for the PS3 version.)

  • Catnipcookie

    As long as I can still lock the butler in the fridge, I’m happy.

  • really hope they fixed up the graphics and not just slightly polish it

  • Tom_Phoenix

    Em….I hope I don’t insult anybody by saying this, but….is this Trilogy pack actually warranted? Both the Team Ico games and the Sands of Time series are highly praised (not to mention that the Ico games are hard to come by at retail), so there was a need for their rerelease. These games, on the other hand, weren’t received very well by…well, anybody, as far as I am aware.

    • Ereek

      The original games were actually extremely well received at the time of release, I’m not sure where you’re coming from. I have old magazines on my shelf giving Tomb Raider 2 a 4.5/5 and a 9/10. Actually, the Last Revelation I believe had better reviews than Tomb Raider 3.

      The games themselves, if given a modern day makeover and a control revamp, because let’s face it, the original trilogy’s controls were clunky and horrible, the games will be a welcome addition to the PS3 library.

      Despite the idea of Lara being “sexy” at the time, no one I know actually played the games because of it. They had some really interesting ideas.

      • You do understand the the games being remastered are none of those that you mentioned?

        It’s only Legend, Anniversary, and Underworld.

        • Ereek

          My mistake, then.

          Perhaps I should learn not to skim articles, hmm?

          • Testsubject909

            Aye. And as to why it’s those three.

            I myself have no answer. Underworld is already a PS3 game, so there’s no real need. Maybe they just want to boost up sales with minimal development effort.

            Just add a fresh coat of paint over a dead dog and try to sell it.

            Underworld is so full of bugs and glitches it’s not funny. The gameplay’s not all that up to par either. Anniversary and Legend are by far superior in gameplay but even then. Legends is a bit iffy in terms of platforming fun every now and again, and all three of them have a pretty bad story due to the unlikeable protagonist.

            Seriously. It’s one of those remakes that’ll only sell because of horny teenagers and nostalgia blind loyalist fans to Lara who still believe she’s the hottest thing ever despite the constant intake of newer hotter women in gaming.

            It’s a miracle she even makes it in the “Top 10 hottest women of gaming” what with all the hot girls in videogames. I’d bet there’s more then ten thousand of possible candidates by now and half of those are equally as visually appealing as Lara and probably far more enjoyable company.

          • malek86

            The reason why it’s those two other games, it’s probably because they were already released on the 360, so they don’t need to give them the HD makeover (although the still say it… I wonder what that means).

  • Okay, opinion question on Anniversary. I know it’s a remake of the original, so here’s my question:

    As someone who hated every Tomb Raider sequel but absolutely loved the original game, would I like it?

    • Testsubject909

      Hmm… tough to say. The first Tomb Raider had quite a bit to go for it to begin with.

      I’d say, you have a higher chance of liking it. Out of them all, Anniversary is by far the best. Legend had a better fighting system but seriously, it’s not a game you play for the fighting. Underworld was just simply horrid. Game breaking glitches, even the possibility of completely screwing yourself right off the bat by just jumping off your boat, an action you have to do to begin the game anyways, and getting caught in an underwater current that gets you stuck under the boat and incapable of escaping. (Seriously, happened to me five times in a row, had to restart each time.)

      I will warn you though. As opposed to the flirtatious Lara Croft from the original, we have the Tough-gal-feminist hollywood munches-more-rug-then-a-defective-vacuum-cleaner Lara instead. Meaning she’s pretty much a flat unlikeable character with no redeeming factor other then her nimbleness and rack (which even by today’s standards are pretty much just average hot as opposed to setting-the-bar-hot or epic-hot)

      Story is offputting, but the gameplay is pretty solid. It’s the one I had the most fun with.

      • Well, I never considered Lara to be a sexy character, honestly. I found her to be a ridiculous character, even in the first one, but it was the gameplay that made me love the game.

  • It all makes sense now:
    Why should Sony make a PS2 emulator for PS3 (with all the added bonuses like higher internal resolution) and release it with the next firmware update when all the big boys can release their one generation old games again?

    • Testsubject909

      And yet we’re still praying for a 3D Chrono Trigger and a 3D Final Fantasy 6.

      And not the crappy stereoscopic type here.

  • PrinceHeir

    is this like GOW collection pack? or the Prince of Persia pack(download version only)

    can’t say im excited for this. never been a fan of the tomb raider series but the new one look interesting, will keep an eye out on this.

  • [The Hunter] Doomrider

    As much as I liked Anniversary and Legend, the most exciting thing about this announcement is the fact that we may see other HD remakes by SE.

  • kupomogli

    I’ll be purchasing this when it hits $20 since I don’t own Underworld.

    I’d much rather see a Legacy of Kain Trilogy. Blood Omen 2, Soul Reaver 2, and Defiance.

  • AaqibRawat


    {Devil may cry 1 and 3 HD remakes anybody ?}

  • Guest159

    Sorry to bump and old news topic, but I’ve just stumbled upon this and had to comment.

    TestSubject, not only your taste in er, gaming women, is horrendous and repulsive, and your understanding of Lara Croft character is ludicrously shallow
    and infant, but you’re as well full of it, kind sir, because there was a patch
    released for Underworld, not long after the game’s release, which fixed
    pretty much all of those (exaggerated by yourself btw) glitches.

    • Easy there; no need to insult someone to get a point across.

      • Guest159

        Fair enough.

Video game stories from other sites on the web. These links leave Siliconera.

Siliconera Tests
Siliconera Videos