Tomb Raider Trilogy Review

By Christian Donlan Published 18 March, 2011

Crystal clarity.

Version tested: PlayStation 3

The team at Crystal Dynamics got a lot right with Tomb Raider before players had even tried out a line of their code; before they'd contemplated their first ledge jump, fired off their first grapple hook, or investigated their first crumbling temple wedged deep behind the shimmering folds of a hidden waterfall.

The team got the voice right. Keeley Hawes finally gave Lara Croft a wry, charming, light sense of personality, wiping away years in which Eidos' heroine sounded like a local radio continuity announcer juggling six children, a failing marriage and a heavy migraine. Hawes brought a little warmth and wit to the pencil-thin construction, and fleshed out the character in a way that the – guess what? – tragic back-story never could.

Now I sound like a weirdo. Luckily, casting isn't the only thing the new developer worked wonders with, because the games themselves aren't half bad, either. Tomb Raider Trilogy gives you a chance to look at the full sweep of them. While Crystal Dynamics readies its latest reboot – this one will shove Croft back into her early twenties and tip her out onto a mysterious island filled with complex nut-jobs – PlayStation 3 types get to see Legend, Anniversary, and Underworld all on one disk.

It's an opportunity to chart the fortunes of a developer wrestling with an inherited video game classic as the team leads the adventurer through reinvention, reimagining, and finally a mild reworking for current-gen consoles. Far beyond the shimmery facelift that marks this out as an HD updating, then, it's a fascinating trip.

Let's get the HD part out of the way first. While Underworld's been available on the PlayStation 3 since its release in 2008, it's the first time out for Legend and Anniversary. Both games are present here in versions very similar to their HD upscalings for the Xbox 360.

They run at 720p, according to a weird pop-up in the corner of my television that I haven't been able to turn off yet, and although there might be minute differences, my fairly unscientific comparison of loading the PS3 and 360 games up, switching back and forth dead fast and squinting suggests they're pretty much identical. The only major difference I can detect is that Croft's skin appears to be – and look away, I'm about to use a technical term here – a little shinier on the PS3 version of Anniversary. Perhaps it's hotter inside a PlayStation.

Beneath all that, however, both games have held up very well anyway. The upscaling hasn't been kind to the jagged edges of shadows, but the overall art style has aged nicely, and the animation is still dazzlingly elegant as Croft swings from bars, leaps from tiny spars of rock, and falls, flailingly, to a series of entirely avoidable bone-crunching deaths.

More importantly, they've held up as adventures, too. Legend still feels like the sympathetic departure that it was so clearly meant to be, with its physics puzzles, shorter, snappier levels and fondness for modern settings, while Anniversary updates a fan-favourite itinerary with prettier environments and smarter traps.

Legend certainly seems the most interesting game. The storyline careers from one exotic hot spot to the next, while Tokyo, with its opportunities for clambering over advertising hoardings and zipping around under huge, neon skyboxes, makes for some of my very favourite Croft moments of all time.

Aside from that, the developer invented the magnetic grapple, for which we should all be thankful, and even tried to do something interesting with the series' horrible gunplay through the addition of fancy slow-motion moves and environmental assists.

Overall, it's bizarre to see Tomb Raider redesigned with things like speed-running in mind – there are unlocks and now Trophies available for landing good times through each level – and although the approach wasn't to everyone's tastes, it definitely shook the series out of its creaky middle age. It's lovely Sunday afternoon stuff, too.

If it wasn't what you were after, Crystal Dynamics tried something a little more traditional with the follow-up, returning to the very first Tomb Raider game – and, more importantly, returning to that lonely, lengthy exploration that the series was known for.

With no new friends chatting away in an earpiece, and miles of pendulum blades, misty caverns and block-shifting separating Croft from the beginning and end of each level, Anniversary's a chance to see the series' new custodians acting almost like a cover band – albeit one that's intent on putting its own spin on the classics.

It was up to Underworld to blend both opposing approaches to Tomb Raider – and to conclude the Trilogy's likeably melodramatic plotline. Aside from a slightly rushed ending and an occasionally iffy camera, the game does a pretty good job of it, offering standout set-pieces like a topsy-turvy race out of a sinking sea tanker, and plenty of moments where you're deep underground, lost to the rest of humanity, pulling switches and then listening for that familiar distant rumbling of ancient clockwork.

A handy new gadget allows Croft to move huge pieces of scenery around while the orchestral score swoops and sighs with an insistent reverence, and there are sticky bombs to tack onto sharks and an upgraded grapple to play with, alongside gymnastic animation that flows effortlessly from one wall-spring into the next.

The two DLC episodes that landed on the 360 are missing from the Trilogy compilation – a shame, as there's a puzzle in the first one that's so good it should have its own chat show - but it's still a brisk chunk of adventuring without them, even if somebody in the design team thought it was a good idea to blow up Croft Manor.

Outside of the main games, the Trilogy offers outfits for Home, a – non-dynamic – theme, and developer diaries for all three titles and two trailers for the Guardian of Light. There's also Trophy support and – a welcome addition after The Sly Trilogy – the option to quit back to the launcher from each adventure rather than exiting directly to the PS3 menu.

It's a nice collection of knick-knacks, but the games remain the real attraction. With the frantic, all-action fire-fights of Guardian of Light still burning brightly on download services, and Croft's grimier, nastier new adventure taking shape over in San Francisco, it's the perfect moment to say goodbye – for the time being, at least – to this epic, Technicolor, Saturday matinee approach to the character, and the perfect time to gauge how well the team at Crystal Dynamics fared with their first take on Tomb Raider.

And, for my money, they fared brilliantly.

9 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
Picture of Christian.

About Christian Donlan

Chris Donlan writes about games for Eurogamer and some magazines. His heroes include Eugene Jarvis, Errol Morris, and Linus Van Pelt.

Read more articles from Christian by visiting the Christian Donlan archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (51) Latest comment 11 months ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • mcreddie #1 11 months ago

    9/10 IMHO

    * Agreed then!
    Edited by 1 at 18/03/11 @ 16:13

  • Boomerang #2 11 months ago

    Wait! I can't form an opinion without a number at the end!!

  • NewbieZilla #3 11 months ago

    Better than Halo?

  • MiniAmin #4 11 months ago

    I know it's become a cliche now, but I really prefer the reviews without a score.

  • wizlon #5 11 months ago

    There should be a feature on EG where the score is hidden and you have to enter what you think the score will be, it'll not only be a fun little guessing game but also useful to see whether the reviewers are basing the score on what they've written.

  • Feanor #6 11 months ago

    Anniversary is the best TR game.

  • arcam #7 11 months ago

    @wizlon

    I'm sure it wouldn't be abused by people guessing 1/10 for Xbox exclusives and 10/10 for Playstation games ;)

    *edit: Negs for that? Would it help if I said "and vice versa"?
    Edited by 1 at 18/03/11 @ 17:02

  • Doctor_What #8 11 months ago

    Right, I've lost track of all this. Could someone help me out and put numbers on these games. I played TR1 and TR2 when they were first released. Wasn't Underworld TR6? And is Anniversary TR1 + 2 + 3 in a fancy frock, or is it something else?

    (Oh, and I like having numbers at the end of reviews.)

  • SimonM7 #9 11 months ago

    What about performance? Legend is my favourite but the 360 version suffers some pretty nasty framerate drops, so I wouldn't mind updating my 360 trilogy with this one if that's been addressed.

  • reelbigkris #10 11 months ago

    So the PS3 version has shinier skin and missing some DLC that was aparently great? maybe they are going to re-release the DLC on PSN for more money.

    I missed out on all the tomb raiders since the last revelation. Maybe now is a good chance to give them a go.

  • drumbaby #11 11 months ago

    Underworld was a buggy mess. Have they finally sorted it for this remix?

  • Feanor #12 11 months ago

    I'm pretty sure the Underworld DLC is going to stay 360 exclusive forever.

  • DrDamn #13 11 months ago

    @wizlon
    "useful to see whether the reviewers are basing the score on what they've written."

    The score should be based on what they've played - not what they've written. The score provides a direct overall clarification of their opinion. This is something a lot of people miss when deciding what the score should be based on the words. They based their evaluation on their own preferences and opinion on what is important, not on the reviewers.

  • butler` #14 11 months ago

    "Could someone help me out and put numbers on these games."

    I've read a wikipedia entry on the series and I still don't quite get it. :|

  • andywilkie35 #15 11 months ago

    Tempted

  • eviroboy #16 11 months ago

    Great games but the collection really should include the DLC, in my opinion. Other than trophies, no real reason for me to purchase them as I already own the 360 versions. Depends on the price I guess.

  • SimonM7 #17 11 months ago

    Core made TR1, 2, 3, The Last Revelation, Chronicles, Angel of Darkness, then series implosion.

    Crystal Dynamics made Legend; well recieved, prompted remake/retooling of 1 called Anniversary that was slotted into the story of Legend, then finished off new trilogy with Underworld.
    Edited by 1 at 18/03/11 @ 17:06

  • darkmorgado #18 11 months ago

    @Doctor_What

    Tomb Raider 1
    Tomb Raider 2
    Tomb Raider 3
    Tomb Raider: The Last Revelation
    Tomb Raider: Chronicles
    Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness
    Tomb Raider: Legend
    Tomb Raider: Anniversary
    Tomb Raider: Underworld
    Tomb Raider: Guardian of Light

    Anniversary is a remake of the first game, but also acts as a prequel to Legend, and Underworld wraps up the story arc making the three games linked together from a story perspective.

    Angel of Darkness on PS2 was meant to be the start of a new trilogy but, well, we all know how that turned out. There's a really interesting retrospective on the making of it in an old issue of EDGE that's worth a read.

    Tomb Raider 4 and Chronicles are linked together too, though only loosely. After Lara's "death" at the end of 4, Chronicles has you playing through the anecdotes that people are giving at her memorial service.

  • makariel #19 11 months ago

    "Better than Halo?"

    It has been... how many years? Get over it.

  • God_Octo #20 11 months ago

    ^ Lara Croft and Guardian of Light isn't actually part of the main series- its sort of a spin off. So Tomb Raider (reboot) will be the next game in the series after Underworld.

    But yeah, this does seem a little bit like a cash in. I would have preferred another GoL or something else instead of 3 games we've already played.

  • technicianTed #21 11 months ago

    Rental places like lovefilm are great for these kind of titles.

    I'm currently renting and enjoying the sly cooper collection, this will be next i think.

  • MaoZedong #22 11 months ago

    Post deleted at 09:40:08 17-12-2011

  • billy-beauts #23 11 months ago

    I agree with the 'lets have reviews without scores' opinion and I totally understand the 'better than' comments... Because basically those scores that EG gives are meaningless and have absolutely no correlation with how good the game is. I either think they should scrap the scoreor actually take the scoring of games seriously. 9/10 for this collection is bollocks.

  • intpleeus #24 11 months ago

    Legend is like a television series. Each "episode" is about 1-2 hours long. Each episode has self-contained story with a beginning, middle and end, but they also tie together into a story arc across the whole "season". There is a cast of returning characters for each episode (Lara, Winston, Alister, Zip), and special guest characters for particular episodes (Anaya, Shogo). Each episode also takes place its own location (besides the first and last) with unique aesthetics, music, and themes.

  • darkmorgado #25 11 months ago

    So are these native 720p or just upscaled like the 360 versions? Not that it really makes any difference, just curious.

    Review says pretty clearly they are just upscaled versions and identical to the version that have been on the Xbox for a few years now.

    Seriously, you can pick all three of these games on the 360 for less than this.

  • darkmorgado #26 11 months ago

    In your face 360 owners hahahahahhahahahaa

    How exactly? Theyve them for years.

  • weblaus #27 11 months ago

    Um.. you couldn't see any difference between the PS3 and 360 versions, really? There's some major stuff that has changed, like the PS3 having a much more stable (though still not perfect) framerate - Legend and Anniversary dropped frames on pretty much every corner in 720p back on ther 360. Also, right at the beginning of Legends there's lots more plant life on the 360 and noticably less on the PS3.

    If somebody were to chose between the format now, he'd definitely should get the PS3 versions, no matter if the DLC ever will show up or not.

  • carlosdfn #28 11 months ago

    Hm, I already played these on the PS2 and PC but some sites have it for 20 euro, that's pretty tempting, I enjoyed these a lot and wouldn't mind playing them a second time with improved graphics. The 3 games combined offer a lot of value for half the price of a new game.
    As for the dlc, MS has the rights so forget about it.
    I might bite but I need to make sure that the frame-rate is rock solid. These are relatively old games so not getting a solid 30fps would be quite a letdown.

  • photoboy #29 11 months ago

    Legend and Anniversary were brilliant. Underworld on the other hand, was clearly going to be rubbish from the moment it dumped you into a giant watery area and asked you to find a tiny key in it. And that was just level 1... Such a let down after the first two.

  • carlosdfn #30 11 months ago

    I just watched the DF face-off for underworld again and the frame-rate on PS3 was pretty bad, I need to know if this was fixed!

  • BluShock #31 11 months ago

    Very unlikely, Underworld will probably be a copy and paste job from the original PS3 release.
    Edited by 1 at 18/03/11 @ 20:25

  • carlosdfn #32 11 months ago

    Yeah, I agree.

  • makeamazing #33 11 months ago

    Never played any of them... so i guess its a good time to now get them :D

  • silversun #34 11 months ago

    Just started underworld and i agree the mansion bit a start was great , the controls felt better than i was expecting (xbox360 version) and the underwater bit was very annoying , im a gamer that will stay with a game but other gamers wont , uncharted 2 has become new benchmark for these type of games and hope the next tombradier will be as good as uncharted games are.

    I have played both legend and anniversary and they are both great games , legend is short but easy to get into and anniversary is a very very good update of the origonal first tombraider.

    Im sure i will enjoy underworld alot even with some the frustrating bits in it that will probley come.

    Anyone not played the games i will recomend buying this collection, they are great games.

  • carlosdfn #35 11 months ago

    To be fair though underworld on PS3 is 720p while the 360 version is 1024x576. Would be nice to have a smoother frame-rate on this version though but yeah, not gonna happen.

  • Doctor_What #36 11 months ago

    @ Darkmorgado : Thanks! :)

  • Triggerhappytel #37 11 months ago

    Fantastic; I was going to buy this anyway because I loved Anniversary. Worth noting guys and gals that it's £20 on Shopto: <a href=http://www.shopto.net/P S3/VIDEO%20GAMES/PS3TO21-The%20Tomb%20Raider%20Trilogy%20Pac k.html>clicky</a>.

  • Zerobob #38 11 months ago

    "Could someone help me out and put numbers on these games."

    "I've read a wikipedia entry on the series and I still don't quite get it. :| "

    Ha ha, love it.

  • darkmorgado #39 11 months ago

    Thes elook and play better. U mad bro lol?

    No they don't. The whole review starts by saying they ARE IDENTICAL to 3-year-old xbox games.

  • super_monty #40 11 months ago

    loved legend and ani on 360 got Underworld for ps3, just terrible full of bugs.

  • Softie2k #41 11 months ago

    Tomb Raider 1 was Godlike...TR2 was a pile of shite.

  • carlosdfn #42 11 months ago

    DF's underworld face off says that all 3 games are 1024x576 on the 360. These are 720p so they actually have a 50% increase in resolution. So no, despite what the review says they aren't identical at all.

  • weblaus #43 11 months ago

    @darkmorgado:

    To repeat what I wrote earlier: The claim that the PS3 versions are identical to the old 360 versions is simply wrong, no matter what Christian wrote. They may like (mostly) the same, but the framerate of Legend and Anniversary is better on the PS3 - not that big a surprise, the 360 games were rather disappointing (and obviously due to a lazy conversion) in that regard when run in 720p.
    Edited by 1 at 19/03/11 @ 00:34

  • SimonM7 #44 11 months ago

    Hahah, my post clarifying which game is which was *voted down* by someone. That is hilarious. :D

  • Antaios #45 11 months ago

    "while Tokyo, with its opportunities for clambering over advertising hoardings and zipping around under huge, neon skyboxes, makes for some of my very favourite Croft moments of all time."

    Finally someone seems to agree with me. I think that is one of the absolute story/setting highlights of the franchise, where Lara finally seems to really be able cast off the tomb raiding aspect (which I definitely love) and makes it work too.

  • Pehmu #46 11 months ago

    Zangrief: "how come them xbox versions never received 9/10 then? The xbox versions are pretty gay in comparrison imo."

    You do realize this review is about Tomb Raider _Trilogy_? As in three games in one. It's a different kind of thing to review a trilogy as a whole than just one single game.
    And whether a game is worth a 9 or 7 is really a subjective opinion. Donlan didn't even review the Xbox versions of Anniversary, Legend & Underworld. I'm sure you get where I'm going with this.

    Lastly, it's just a number. Read the review - it's ten times more informative than some sweaty number.

  • TheApologist #47 11 months ago

    Good to see Tomb Raider get such a glowing review - I've already played this Trilogy across my PC and PS3 and they have been some of my highlights of the last few years gaming. I always felt they got a bit ignored or under-appreciated at review.

  • Bombonera #48 11 months ago

    I've played Underworld and Legend on the 360, and while they didn't exactly set the world alight for me, I enjoyed the;m. I remember they mostly received scores of 7 or 8/10 from most sites and publications. I would give them both an 8/10. I'd say this trilogy is worth it for that niche market of people who own a PS3 but not a 360, or who own both but haven't played these games.

  • uzivatel #49 11 months ago

    Nice compilation for PS3-only fans of the franchise.

    Those with 360 should pick the games on that one - the DLCs are good if expensive...

  • Spong #50 11 months ago

    "9/10 for this collection is bollocks."

    Worth quoting. And I'm a massive Tomb Raider nerd, so that's saying something.

  • Vortex3D #51 11 months ago

    How about show screen captures comparing the graphics on Legends and Anniversary HD remake to X360 version? I like to know if HD remake version graphics is better or worse after having a lot more time to "improve" it. Didn't SE say they use PS2 version to do the HD remake? Two of the games already been made in HD on X360 several years ago.