   maximum results for minimal cost
using the best looking game seen sofar as a benchmark ( best to aim high, so youve got further to fall :) )ignoring the error in this screenshot (+ its prolly downsampled)what is the *single factor* that makes it so good *the lighting?*the dof? (it looks like theyve decreased the constrast + upped the brightness with the blur, also I see errors)*the high geometry*high quality textures*the minuet motion blur (it looks like a slight bit)i.e. what should I focus primary on, i.e. whats gonna give me the best bang for the buck?btw the answer is not the art (true it plays a part)   
  I think lighting (and associated shadows) plays the major role in this picture.  Of course texture resolution and quality as and the high geometry play important roles, but I think those are more the artist's responsibilities than the programmer's (though the programmer needs to be able to handle them).   ;I would vote for depth-of-field and glow. It gives that fluffy and fuzzy realistic look.;  IMO it's the composition, not one of these things but all of them. The camera angle, the choice of colors, the pose the characters are in. It's all from the mind of a designer to give this overall impact, not one of these features alone can reproduce.How ever if i could choose only a couple. It would be:1.) Props, characters, and camera layout to convey the proper scenario/emotion.2.) Correct color matching to be pleasing to the eye*3.) Crap ton of eye candy on top of that.   ;1. Lighting & materials are good (it takes both to make good picture)2. fog / haze is good. (gives depth to image)3. DOF is evil. (attracts players eye to wrong point)Best bang for buck:Normaly in 3d best results come from good lighting & materials.( basic math in CG: light * materia = image )Makeing good materia takes lot`s of time from artist.Makeing good lighting takes lot`s of time from coder.But in in the end, both must be at same level./Tyrian;  The lighting and shadowing did it for me. The colors are unreallistic but there's a nice contrast between lit and shadowed areas. That combination is a win.   ;  I'd just like to second that Depth of Field in most games is horrible. I want my camera focus either pure (all points in focus at all depths, with motion blur based on per-pixel temporal displacement if at all), or focused at the aiming zone.In the screenshot, the focused zone is from Drake to the nearest soldier; if I'm really "in" that combat, however, I want focus from just in front of Drake to the burning car.   ;  Static shots can benefit quite alot from DoF. Imagine the background away, and the shot is suddenly not that interesting anymore. DoF helps dramatizing, if properly used of course. Just like HDR/blooming it can be easily overdone. But here it matches properly with the whole setting (thus its definitely an art thing).Don't know if the lighting is that good, except that the overall athmosphere is just well done. The shadows seems a little bit sharp too me. But what makes it also good is the color scheme. Many games have that blurrish/grayish/dark/saturated setting. That's why I liked Farcry so much when it came out 6(?) years ago. Much sharp&bright colors in a sunny setting. Here you can see that as well. No blur/fog/noise/smoke/bloom used to hide the foreground. Just sharp textures and color settings that match together. Especially the fresh grass and blue jackets/red barets from the enemies stand out if you ask me.I think you shouldn't try to analyse the "golden shader" factor in games too much. I always tend do that as well, but the fact is that the whole composition makes or breaks a scene. We have all seen that engines can produce very nice looking games (Source > Halflife2, Crytek > Farcry/Crysis, id > Doom3). But that is not just the tech. It's because the artists exactly know what to do with it. Therefore often mods or amateur maps that use the same engine suddenly don't look that good anymore...Greetings,Rick;  I don't like this example of DOF because it's flat (everything behind the two guys in blue is equally blurred regardless of the widely varying position), exaggerated for the background and insufficient for the foreground.There are also heartbreaking artifacts in shadow maps (e.g. pixelation and strange texture around the lower right corner) and models (e.g. all the ground portion, including pavement, rocks and bricks, has sharp edges).Other defects include the flying car in the middle of the background and the halos around objects in general.The character model in the foreground is really good (only the pockets in the back of his trousers and the creases of his shirt look flat), the two other characters look similar, and object models like the cars are also very realistic.Unfortunately quality and realism depend on the weakest link of the chain, and the polygonal rocks in the lower middle spoil the illusion for me (in play, clumsy lighting and focus FX might be worse).;  One thing to note with these images when published at this size... they are NOT representative of the game itself.the method used to render them does involve the game engine but it does so by tiling the screen and rendering many many individual screenshots which are then compiled in a pixel pushing app to build the final image.many post effects and clean up steps are then applied.   