Digital Foundry just dropped a technical analysis that’s going to hurt. Aspyr’s surprise port of Tomb Raider Definitive Edition to Switch and Switch 2 is, in their words, remarkably iffy with the Switch 2 version proving especially disappointing on a visual basis. The shocking revelation? This brand-new port running on 2025 hardware removes visual features that existed in the 2013 PlayStation 3 version of the game. Shadow resolution, foliage density, ambient occlusion, TressFX hair physics – all either gutted or completely removed to hit 60fps on Nintendo’s latest hardware. For a 12-year-old game running on a console more powerful than the PS4, these compromises feel indefensible.
- The Surprise Port Nobody Asked For
- What Makes the Switch 2 Port Worse Than PS3
- TressFX – The Missing Signature Feature
- The PS4 Definitive Edition’s Own Problems
- The Performance Trade-Off
- What Aspyr Should Have Done
- Implications for Rise and Shadow Ports
- Community Reaction and Reddit Discussion
- Aspyr’s Track Record
- Frequently Asked Questions
- Conclusion
The Surprise Port Nobody Asked For
Aspyr delivered an unannounced, surprise port of Tomb Raider’s 2013 reboot in its Definitive Edition guise to both Switch and Switch 2 consoles last week. This came as a shock following their well-received work on Tomb Raider 1-3 Remastered earlier in 2024, which Digital Foundry praised as a carefully measured, well-executed collection that balanced modern enhancements with respect for the original games. Unfortunately, lightning didn’t strike twice.
The timing is particularly awkward given that Aspyr and Crystal Dynamics just announced Tomb Raider 4-6 Remastered for 2025. Those classic remasters earned goodwill from the community for their thoughtful approach to updating 90s-era games. This 2013 reboot port, by contrast, feels like a rush job that prioritized hitting performance targets over preserving the visual identity that made the Definitive Edition worth playing in the first place.
What Makes the Switch 2 Port Worse Than PS3
Digital Foundry’s analysis reveals a shocking level of visual regression compared to both the PS4 Definitive Edition and even the original PS3 version from 2013. Shadow resolution has dropped significantly while foliage-based shadows have either been removed entirely or converted from dynamic, swaying branch-tracked shadows to static ones. Ambient occlusion has been pared back dramatically, removing depth and definition from scenes.
The foliage situation is particularly egregious. While some foliage elements have been added in certain areas, many others have been deleted outright, leaving regions looking patchy and sparse up close while reducing entire lines of trees in distant vistas. The result is brighter, emptier environments that fundamentally change the mood and atmosphere of the game. Tomb Raider’s 2013 reboot was praised for its moody, survival-focused aesthetic – removing the shadows and vegetation that established that tone feels like gutting what made the game special.
The Tessellation Problem
Another bizarre defect involves tessellation not loading properly in various areas, removing geometric detail and leaving awkward patches of flat textures where detailed surfaces should exist. This technical issue suggests the port may have been rushed or inadequately tested before release, with obvious visual problems making it into the shipping build.
TressFX – The Missing Signature Feature
Perhaps the most emblematic omission is TressFX, the strand-based hair physics system that animated Lara’s signature ponytail. This feature debuted in the PC version of the 2013 original before getting ported to the PS4 and Xbox One Definitive Editions. It became one of the most recognizable visual elements of modern Lara, with her flowing hair reacting dynamically to movement, wind, and water.
Digital Foundry notes they could understand omitting TressFX from the original Switch version given that console’s limited hardware. But Switch 2? The system is comparable to PS4 Pro in docked mode with more modern architecture. The fact that a 2014 feature running on base PS4 hardware can’t make it onto 2025’s Switch 2 suggests either technical incompetence or a development timeline so rushed that implementing proper hair physics wasn’t feasible.
The PS4 Definitive Edition’s Own Problems
One complicating factor that Digital Foundry highlights is that the PS4 Definitive Edition itself cut back some features from the original PS3 and Xbox 360 versions. Screen-space rain effects, improved shadow coverage in certain areas, and denser geometry in specific scenes were removed for the Definitive Edition, though it balanced those cuts with other improvements like higher resolution and better textures overall.
The Switch 2 port represents what Digital Foundry calls “the worst of all worlds” – it takes the PS4 Definitive Edition as a base (which already had cuts) and then removes even more features on top of that. So you’re getting a doubly-compromised version that lacks elements from both the PS3 original and the PS4 remaster. For players who’ve never experienced Tomb Raider 2013, they’re receiving an inferior version without even knowing what’s missing.
The Performance Trade-Off
So what did all these visual cuts achieve? A locked 60 frames per second on Switch 2, which the PlayStation 4 could not maintain without PS4 Pro boost mode or PS5 backwards compatibility. Digital Foundry acknowledges this as a positive, along with improved texture quality compared to the base PS4 version. For players who prioritize smoothness over visual fidelity, 60fps represents a legitimate advantage.
However, the resolution situation reveals potential inefficiency. The Switch 2 version locks to 1080p in both docked and portable modes. Digital Foundry suggests this indicates Aspyr may have left significant GPU headroom on the table in docked play – if the system can handle 1080p in portable mode at 60fps, it should theoretically be able to push higher resolutions or restore some cut features when docked and drawing more power.
Switch 1 Performance Struggles
The original Switch version runs at 864p-900p docked and 720p portable with a 30fps cap that it frequently fails to maintain. General gameplay can feel smooth enough, but any scenes with multiple NPCs and enemies – including shootouts and cinematics – drop the framerate into the 20s. When those characters leave or die, framerate jumps back up, suggesting CPU bottlenecks rather than GPU limitations.
Visually, the Switch 1 version mostly matches the Switch 2’s settings with two exceptions – it adds noticeable, distracting flicker to shadows and implements more aggressive level-of-detail culling on distant foliage. This creates the impression that the Switch 2 port is essentially a resolution and framerate bump over the Switch 1 version rather than a properly optimized implementation taking advantage of the newer hardware’s capabilities.
What Aspyr Should Have Done
Digital Foundry’s frustration is palpable when they note that in a world where developers are delivering Switch 2 ports comparable to (and in some cases better than) Xbox Series S titles, it’s disappointing to see this game paring back so many features that even the non-Definitive PlayStation 3 version includes. The differences are especially stark because they revolve around mood-establishing shadows and foliage that anchored the 12-year-old original’s visual identity.
The article suggests Aspyr should have taken more time to properly implement PS4-equivalent features rather than rushing to market with a port that prioritizes performance metrics over visual quality. Given that this is a surprise release with no pre-announced date, there was no external pressure forcing them to ship before the port was ready. The decision to release in this state appears to be purely internal.
Implications for Rise and Shadow Ports
Digital Foundry concludes their analysis with a pointed warning: if Aspyr and Crystal Dynamics are planning to complete the trilogy with Rise of the Tomb Raider and Shadow of the Tomb Raider ports to Switch 2, they can only hope for more sympathetic, feature-rich conversions that do those excellent games justice. This statement carries weight given Digital Foundry’s typically measured, technical approach to game analysis – they rarely issue prescriptive warnings about future projects.
The concern is valid given that both Rise and Shadow are more technically ambitious than the 2013 reboot. If Aspyr struggled to properly port the least demanding game in the trilogy, what hope is there for the sequels that push geometry, lighting, and particle effects significantly further? The community now watches nervously to see whether this port represents an anomaly or establishes a pattern for how Aspyr handles these projects going forward.
Community Reaction and Reddit Discussion
The Reddit discussion on r/Games reveals widespread disappointment from the community. Many users expressed shock that a 12-year-old game couldn’t run properly on modern hardware, with several noting they play more demanding titles on Steam Deck at higher settings than what Aspyr delivered on Switch 2. The consensus is that this port feels lazy and rushed, prioritizing a quick release over quality implementation.
Some commenters defended the 60fps target as worthwhile, arguing that smooth gameplay matters more than visual flourishes. However, even these defenders acknowledged that the extent of the cuts seems excessive for the performance gained. The argument that Aspyr could have found better balance between visuals and performance dominated the discussion, with many suggesting a 40fps option with restored features would have been preferable.
Aspyr’s Track Record
This disappointing port stands in stark contrast to Aspyr’s recent work. Their Tomb Raider 1-3 Remastered collection earned universal praise from Digital Foundry and the community for thoughtfully updating classic games while respecting their original design. John Linneman’s review highlighted how the remasters retained original geometry and layouts while layering in enhanced lighting, high-resolution textures, and quality-of-life improvements without compromising the core experience.
The difference in approach is night and day. The classic remasters carefully preserved what made those games special while modernizing presentation and controls. This 2013 reboot port strips away features that defined the game’s visual identity to hit performance targets that arguably weren’t necessary. Players would rather have a rock-solid 40fps with PS4-equivalent visuals than 60fps in a compromised version that looks worse than 12-year-old console hardware.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did Digital Foundry say about Tomb Raider on Switch 2?
Digital Foundry called it “a remarkably iffy port” with Switch 2 “proving a disappointment on a visual basis.” The port removes features that existed in the 2013 PS3 version including proper shadows, foliage density, ambient occlusion, and TressFX hair physics to achieve 60fps.
How does Tomb Raider Switch 2 compare to PS4?
The Switch 2 version runs at locked 60fps compared to PS4’s unstable framerate, but removes shadow resolution, foliage-based shadows, ambient occlusion, TressFX hair, and has tessellation loading issues. It looks worse than the PS4 Definitive Edition despite running on newer hardware.
What resolution does Tomb Raider run at on Switch 2?
Tomb Raider Definitive Edition locks to 1080p on Switch 2 in both docked and portable modes at 60fps. Digital Foundry suggests this indicates GPU headroom was left unused, as the game could potentially run at higher resolutions docked or restore cut features.
Does Switch 2 Tomb Raider have TressFX?
No, the Switch 2 version completely removes TressFX, the strand-based hair physics system that was a signature feature of the Definitive Edition on PS4 and Xbox One. Lara’s ponytail uses basic rigid animation instead of dynamic physics.
How does Tomb Raider run on original Switch?
The original Switch version runs at 864p-900p docked and 720p portable with a 30fps cap that frequently drops into the 20s during scenes with multiple NPCs or enemies. It also suffers from shadow flicker and aggressive LOD culling on distant foliage.
Who developed the Tomb Raider Switch port?
Aspyr developed the Tomb Raider Definitive Edition ports for both Switch and Switch 2. This is the same studio that created the well-received Tomb Raider 1-3 Remastered collection and is working on Tomb Raider 4-6 Remastered for 2025.
Is Tomb Raider Switch 2 worth buying?
Based on Digital Foundry’s analysis, the Switch 2 version is a compromised port that removes features from both the PS3 original and PS4 Definitive Edition. Unless portability is essential, playing on literally any other platform would provide a superior experience with the game’s intended visuals.
Will Rise and Shadow of the Tomb Raider come to Switch 2?
While not officially announced, Digital Foundry speculates Aspyr may port Rise and Shadow to complete the trilogy on Switch 2. However, they express concern that if Aspyr struggled with the least demanding game, the more ambitious sequels could face even worse compromises.
Conclusion
Digital Foundry’s analysis of Tomb Raider Definitive Edition on Switch 2 reveals a disappointing port that fundamentally misunderstands what made the 2013 reboot worth preserving. Yes, 60fps feels smoother than 30fps. Yes, portability adds value for players who want Lara’s adventure on the go. But achieving those targets by gutting the atmospheric shadows, lush foliage, and signature hair physics that defined the game’s visual identity represents a Faustian bargain that most players would reject if given the choice. The most damning aspect is that this isn’t a hardware limitation issue – other developers are delivering Switch 2 ports that rival or exceed Xbox Series S quality while Aspyr couldn’t match what the PS3 accomplished in 2013. This suggests either technical incompetence, inadequate development time, or misguided priorities that valued hitting arbitrary performance metrics over delivering the definitive version the port’s name promises. With Tomb Raider 4-6 Remastered and potential Rise and Shadow ports on the horizon, the community can only hope Aspyr learned from this critical drubbing. Digital Foundry rarely issues direct warnings about future projects, making their plea for “more sympathetic, feature-rich conversions” all the more significant. Whether Aspyr takes that criticism to heart or continues prioritizing performance over presentation will determine if this port represents an unfortunate one-off or the start of a troubling pattern for one of gaming’s most iconic franchises.