Face-Off: Call of Juarez: The Cartel

Mexcian stand-off.

- Xbox 360 PlayStation 3
Disc Size 6.2GB 5.45GB
Install 6.2GB (optional) -
Surround Support Dolby Digital Dolby Digital, DTS, 5.1LPCM, 7.1LPCM

Developer Techland has taken something of a gamble with new offering Call of Juarez: The Cartel. The series has turned its back on the era of the cowboy, relocating the first person shooter action to modern day Los Angeles, opening up a whole new world of high calibre weaponry, vehicles and more densely packed environments.

There's a real sense here that the studio is looking to expand the reach of the franchise, not only with the change of locale but also in the implementation of crowd-pleasing features such as full co-operative online play - up to three players work together through the campaign, adding a more social and tactical approach to the straightforward bursts of FPS action.

Unfortunately, things haven't quite gone to plan: moving away from the Old West has simply made Call of Juarez look like many other middle of the road "urban" shooters, while the solid nature of the visuals in the last two titles seems to have been compromised somewhat as a result of some bland art design choices that don't seem to entirely suit the series' bespoke engine tech.

It's quite a surprise to see a lack of progress on Techland's part with regards to the overall look of the game, especially since The Cartel is running on the new, more technologically advanced Chrome Engine 5. There's a real feeling that the rendering technology doesn't get the opportunity to play up to its strengths in the new locale: in previous Juarez outings, Chrome has consistently delivered detailed landscapes with accompanying long range vistas but the urban setting of the new game doesn't seem to make the most of the engine's capabilities.

The Cartel's less urban areas still show promise though: not only are rural environments more lushly detailed with the use of some pleasing effects (such as light shafts beaming through the trees), but the artwork also does a much better job of standing out from the pack of competing first person shooters.

The most obvious technological changes appear to be how the rendering load is handled on both versions of the game, in combination with a boost in native resolution: it's a noticeable improvement over the last Call of Juarez, as the requisite head-to-head video and comparison gallery reveal.

A direct head-to-head comparison of Call of Juarez: The Cartel on Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3. Use the full-screen button for full 720p resolution, or click the link below for a larger window.

The Cartel's predecessor, Bound in Blood, employs a sub-HD rendering resolution on the PS3: 1152x640 upscaled to 720p, while a cropped 1280x672 is present on the 360, framed by borders. On both versions, a custom anti-aliasing solution provides a decent alternative to the standard use of multi-sample anti-aliasing (MSAA).

In Techland's latest, both consoles now adopt vertical 720p framebuffers - horizontal resolution has been slightly reduced on the 360 (1200x720 on the Microsoft platform compared to native 720p on the PS3), thus allowing the framebuffer and render targets to fit into the system's 10MB eDRAM, without the need to "tile out" mid-frame to main memory, sapping peformance. The difference in image quality between the two is fairly minor: the game isn't quite as sharp on 360 but it's hardly an issue and it's definitely an improvement over The Cartel's predecessor, Bound in Blood, which employed a sub-HD rendering resolution on PS3 (1152x640) and a cropped 1280x672 on 360.

The developer's custom anti-aliasing solution returns, effectively smoothing over the more obvious edges, but not without adding a slight softness to the image. This, along with some of the game's use of post processing elements, give the game's presentation a very mild 'sub-HD' look to it.

The basic graphical make-up of the game initially seems quite close between the two versions, and for the most part texture detail and environment modelling is largely identical. There are a few instances of lower resolution textures dotted about on the PS3, along with weaker use of normal mapping, but there's nothing particularly noticeable in this regard that's likely to impact the gameplay experience.

However, the inadequacies of the streaming system utilised by The Cartel is a real problem for both versions of the game. Regularly, we see some obvious and ugly detail transitions occurring close to the player: a good example can be found at 1.27 in the head-to-head video, and in the screens dotted around this page - often you'll see transitions between several detail levels on many environmental objects as higher quality assets pop into view. Both the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 are affected, but it's clear that texture streaming isn't quite as solid on the Microsoft platform: there are times when higher quality assets simply fail to load, resulting in low resolution artwork being spread across the ground, while object streaming in general appears to be a tad behind on the PS3.

On the other hand, texture filtering on the other hand is better on the 360, with anisotropic filtering providing smoother transitions between mip-map levels leading to clearer art in the distance, compared with a blurrier bilinear implementation on PS3. That said, in terms of the impact on the game's visual quality, the 360 game's texture streaming issues are far more of an issue - detail is lost and a distinct blur is cast over parts of the environment when the art assets don't load, or take their time manifesting on-screen.

Elsewhere, other differences are relatively minor, such as the shadow penumbras looking a touch smoother on the 360, or the casting of lower precision shadows in many areas on the PS3. However, other elements are much more apparent during play: motion blur for example, is rendered in a lower resolution on the PS3, resulting in some unpleasant pixelisation artifacts. Additionally, the fall-off transitions between the layers of fog are also much harsher too; the 360 version features a smooth blend between layers as elements of the environment become engulfed in the effect.

Comments (31) Latest comment 7 months ago

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

  • AcidSnake #1 7 months ago

    A side effect of playing a game on two systems?

    The Cartel's predecessor, Bound in Blood, employs a sub-HD rendering resolution on the PS3: 1152x640 upscaled to 720p, while a cropped 1280x672 is present on the 360...
    ...an improvement over The Cartel's predecessor, Bound in Blood, which employed a sub-HD rendering resolution on PS3 (1152x640) and a cropped 1280x672 on 360
    On the other hand, texture filtering on the other hand is better on the 360

    :)

    So is this the new guy they wanted alongside Leadbetter? Hi, new guy!
    Edited by 1 at 28/07/11 @ 14:54
  • miiiguel #2 7 months ago

    Some, if not most of recent games are bigger Gb-wise, on the 360, which is strange, with the Blue Ray and all...
  • Architect_z #3 7 months ago

    PS3 is overhyped compared to 360?

    When did that happen?
  • M1chl #4 7 months ago

    Does characters in game wear dirty glasses? That bluriness is awful. This game seems like fail and I loved first CoJ and liked the second..
  • lollish #5 7 months ago

    "Lol Once again the 360 laughs in the face of sony's overhyped overexpensive toaster! When will you sdf guys see the light? Pfft! blue ray, do me a favour."
    O_O why 360 laughs? O_O I have read a different comparison? to me not seem a stand out victory, every version has it's favours & cont no? Meh...
    Edited by 1 at 28/07/11 @ 15:21
  • anthonypappa #6 7 months ago

    looks like a fun bargain game, the kind you go into with low expectations with so don't get disappointed.

    anyone played it? is it truly shite? or can you get a laugh with it...
  • Porcupine_I #7 7 months ago

    i'm devastated! :-(

    a game i don't want looks better on a console i don't own. how do i deserve this?
  • Astro-Creature #8 7 months ago

    I come here just for spacedellete's comments.

    Comedy gold.
  • Azhrarn #9 7 months ago

    I fully intended to buy this, if it had been released on the promised date in july. Instead they choose to move the PC release date to a period in which many other, and better games are released.
    And from all the reviews and previews I have read I am glad they did, because more and more this appears to have become a rather uninteresting mediocre game.
  • wogsy81 #10 7 months ago

    Damn spacedlete.
    Ive read comments of yours now slagging of PC owners and PS3 owners.

    Why dont you just put a big neon sign on your head saying "Im a fucking smelly tramp who can only afford to buy a xbox 360. I slag off PC owners and multi platorm owners just to make my trampy smelly self feel better"

    That will be slightly less suttle then some of the comments your posting.
  • DavoTheDiv #11 7 months ago

    It's Blu Ray people!!!
  • Darren #12 7 months ago

    Well, I will say that the article was more interesting to read than the game is to play...
  • orangpelupa #13 7 months ago

    @overhype
    in a sense, PS3 is not really overhyped. SONY say something like PS3 is a super computer. In a sense, yes, PS3 is a super computer. Although by itself, one PS3 is not a super computer. Many PS3 networked together is a supercomputer.

    overhyped is game advertisement in those very old year (the NES era and before NES era.)
    they already saying High Definition and realistic at that year hahaha.

    or maybe on PS2... ugh the overhype about "Emotion Engine" :D
  • lollish #14 7 months ago

    However never understood why the developers have so much difficult to change the high transparancies water reflection on the ps3 in simple low buffer or even in a cheap artistical texture... release this outdated water completely flat & bland on the ps3 seem really idiot & not professionistic...we don't talking of massive increase of RAM cost here eh....
    Edited by 2 at 28/07/11 @ 16:27
  • dr_zoidthrob #15 7 months ago

    So the texture streaming and pop-in is no worse than LA Noire's then... fair enough
  • StooMonster #16 7 months ago

    DavoTheDiv: It's Blu Ray people!!!

    If you are going to correct people, it's a Blu-ray.
  • Widge #17 7 months ago

    JESUS, turn the graphics down a notch and cut the tearing! I'd rather have less detail than having Edward Scissorhands in charge of the rendering engine.
  • edhe #18 7 months ago

  • YailBloor #19 7 months ago

    I assume the sub-heading is supposed to read 'mexican stand-off'?
  • Demiath #20 7 months ago

    "Jumping out from behind creates and doorways"?
  • maxb #21 7 months ago

    anthonypappa,im about half way through it and so far i would say its not shit but its not the greatest game either there are some good ideas hidden away in it and im quite enjoying it and with a few mates it can be a laugh.
    overall definatly worth a punt if you see it below £20
  • sam90 #22 7 months ago

    @lollish
    We're talking about rendering scene once again into reflection map. Cheap artistical texture doesn't work here, but i agree. Why completely remove reflections... But, who knows, maybe rendering scene again just for reflections was too much for ps3. As we can see, they already had to lower quality of some effects (motion blur, fog).
  • Darksjeik #23 7 months ago

    The worst thing about the PS3 version is the stuttering and constant pauses in the audio. This made me trade the game for the 360 version..
  • Badassbab #24 7 months ago

    Question to David Bierton-

    Do you install 360 games to the HDD for the H2H or not like Lens of Truth? Reason I ask is because you've mentioned texture streaming issues a few times now on the 360 (being worse then PS3) and this is usually resolved at least somewhat with an HDD install.
    Edited by 1 at 28/07/11 @ 20:22
  • Diomedes117 #25 7 months ago

    Oh so many fanboys, reading face offs about their crappy consoles, which can't even get 30fps at 720p. And really, the PS3 is a supercomputer or a toaster? Or a bluray player?
  • riseer #26 7 months ago

    spacedellete,Don't be a tard the game is full of bugs both consoles can handle the same graphics for the most part.This game is bad anyways and who cares..let a Sony first party dev build a great game..
    Edited by 1 at 28/07/11 @ 23:16
  • Keivz #27 7 months ago

    Is there anyone really caught up enough on their backlog that they are willing to pay for and play a subpar game like this these days? Come on.
  • RodHull #28 7 months ago

    I imagine that the game could run at 1080p with 4x AA and thanks to that crappy art direction it'd still look arse.
  • mrblonde #29 7 months ago

    Even after 6 years the aging 360 hardware still outperforms the "future proof" ps3 in 95% of titles released each year.
    An uncharted every 2 years doesn't make up for this.
    If i were Sony id hire some of msofts 360 R+D team for the ps4
  • Otis_Inf #30 7 months ago

    It sounds as if they did most of the effects in shaders on the GPU, which leads to less performance on the PS3, they should have used more of the SPUs power. After all, the SPU's are more than capable of doing the effects which are now missing on the PS3 while they are present on the 360. This is sad, but unfortunately still common: doing effects in shaders is easier to port to another platform than a complete post-processing pipeline targeting SPUs.

    Edited by 1 at 29/07/11 @ 14:07
  • pro_interesting #31 7 months ago