I totally agree, it's a fair port. But IMO, it's the only X360 ported game that deserves to be called "fair". It kills me to reas such idiotic comments as "looks the same lololol rofl".

They look identical to me. The 360 lara looks plasticy. But I'm not gonna go on about it. I know there are alot better looking 360 games to come, so I'm just gonna avoid this one. Simple solution.

No way FNR3 is a port. Or in this case, GRAW is a port too.

And about the face debate, even if I think the 360 is faaar superior to the old-gen one, I also do prefer lara's old-gen face. The normal map of the skin and the reflections just don't look right to me.

I wish people would not use that phrase, it is completely misleading.

I think the problem is we don't allow for enough distinctions in a "port". Some examples of variances.

(1) Current Console - to - Next Gen Console
(1a) Straight conversion, no graphical upgrades
(1b) Convesion with graphical upgrades
(1c) Co-development of current & next gen console titles that leverage engines, assets, dev teams, and/or other resources
(1d) Co-development of current & next gen console titles that are divergent in assets, engines, etc... basically just the name is the same
(1e) Games that never got released on current gen and were ported to the next gen consoles; may have characteristics of 1a,b,c,d

(2) PC - to - Next Gen Conversions
See 1a-1e

(3) Ported Engines
(3a) Straight engine port
(3b) Engine port with extra features enabled
(3c) Engine port, significant re-write with a number of key features incompatible with the previous engine

Tomb Raiders falls at 1b; King Kong falls between 1b & 1c. And don't buy the BS, as a long time Madden player I can tell you that Madden 360 is not "completely" rewritten from the ground up -- the fact it has a number of flaws from the previous console gen means they imported significant amounts of the old gameplay engine.

Even the "exclusives" have not been "build from the ground up". See PGR3 which falls under 3b-c.

I guess someone can say, "We built this from the ground up for the 360" with the meaning, "We developed this game with the 360 in mind" but no one, absolutely no one, at this time has built a game/engine for the 360 "from day 1" and built their game "from the ground up *for the 360 hardware*".

Subtle distinction (like many of the others above), but one that should be made. Personally I am tired of people, PR people, saying, "Yeah this game is built from the ground up". BS. But it works. A lot of people get excited, "Dude, this game has been built from the ground up for the next gen consoles!"

Then again most people don't know what texture filtering is and often cannot tell the difference in graphics to begin with. And some of it is also preference (and art); I don't know how many times less accurate/correct effects are preferred by viewers because something sticks out that they like (AA is a good example). But then again I have seen dozens of game journalists of the last 5 years call games "photo-realistic" or nearly so when in fact it is very, VERY far away. I remember how "good" HL2 looked when it came out, but now it is below average and no one would accuse it of being photorealistic.