[Turnsky]

it woulda been better for all if deepblue was kind enough to link the relevent gamepage on gametrailers.. like thus.

http://www.gametrailers.com/gamepage.php?fs=1&id=2606

[Deepblue]

That wasn't up at the time I posted. Srry.

That's it? From Deepblue's and Cobra's reactions I was expecting second coming of Messiah.

BTW, don't link to some asx **** that cannot be viewed on any other than windows boxes. Thank you.

There's a  lot of fan service in this trailer. I wouldn't expect everyone to "get" it.

[Mefustae]

It's not your fault, you seem to have been too busy "squeeking" to have noticed.

[Quest_techie]

http://halo3.com/index2.html

they're looking for beta testers

[Herra Tohtori]

Here's a HD version of this new teaser, if someone can't use the streaming video.

[Turnsky]

it's already on xbox live, so i see it in 720p glory.

[bloated]

Hopefully it means that Halo 3 will acknowledge some of the sweet elements of the books.

I read the books, the 1st one was ok but not really.

the 2nd was pretty bad to totally uninspired..... to be honest I thought it was terrible until I read the 3rd book then I had a new benchmark on terrible....... I so incredibly despise authors who are incapable of working within their own guildelines let alone routinely breaking the limits of any credibility.

the 3rd book see above it was worthless crap that ignored established guidelines set down by the game along with granting Cortana Godlike ability and superiority over everything........ just plain a terrible book.

all 3 books seem incapable of understanding that the Covenant are supposed to be technologically advanced by about 300 years, both Halo and Halo 2 show covenant weapons to be auto targeting as well as target id'ing and Elites are equal in most everyway to the Master chief along with several points within the novels where the author ignores the sticky nature of covenant grenades.... IE: a group of grunts jumps onto the master cheif trying to pull off his helmet to drop a covenant grenade inside?..... ummm on legendary 1 grenade kills and they stick so why bother?

yes I read all 3 because I love the game series and just really wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt..... sadly the authors commisioned to write the books obviously did not share the same level of interest or hold any level of respect for the game....... rule 1 do not write the books based on the game being played on "infant level" try catering the books to the game played on "legendary" and stay within established guidelines not re-invent your own as you go.

p.s. I agree with everything Mustafea pointed out in his post and was that a new brute, or was it a flood boss/brute because the smaller ones didn't resemble any grunts I'm familiar with but could have born a possible resemblence to combat flood characters.

p.s.s. I've read somewhere that the Covenant and the Terrans were going to join forces to fight the flood and the shield grenade seems really silly.

all that said I was ok with the trailer but it didn't offer anything "exciting".

[aldo_14]

Reasons this is WAY better than the E3 trailer:

+Acknowledges elements from the books.
+Demonstrates game play elements (visible weapons, Sprinting?!, darker tone?)
+Shield grenade!!!
+Attaching assault rifle to back
+First look at new brutes
+High action, rather than just standing and looking.

Reasons this is not better:
- Not the game-engine.

So it's really just the Halo version of the Killzone trailer?

Seriously, this isn't any different than the Call of Duty console adverts that got rapped by the ASA.  Why the fuss?  You don't see me plugging, say, Irn Bru adverts.... I mean, it's a bloody ad.  Advertisement.  Nothing more.

[Turnsky]

Reasons this is WAY better than the E3 trailer:

+Acknowledges elements from the books.
+Demonstrates game play elements (visible weapons, Sprinting?!, darker tone?)
+Shield grenade!!!
+Attaching assault rifle to back
+First look at new brutes
+High action, rather than just standing and looking.

Reasons this is not better:
- Not the game-engine.

So it's really just the Halo version of the Killzone trailer?

Seriously, this isn't any different than the Call of Duty console adverts that got rapped by the ASA.  Why the fuss?  You don't see me plugging, say, Irn Bru adverts.... I mean, it's a bloody ad.  Advertisement.  Nothing more.

Deepblue likes to look further into things than necessary..

as for the Killzone thing, at least we know from the get-go that it's CG, so it's not -really- a bullshot. as for the new-look brutes, they look more or less the same, except CG-Fied.

Deep, it's an advert, not an actual display of game quality, you're gonna haveta wait until 2007 until you see something concrete involving gameplay features.

[aldo_14]

Y'see, this is the thing.  As with Killzone - or the Brothers In Arms, Call of Duty etc adverts - there's nothing actually saying this isn't CGI to the viewer.

Ultimately, though, this doesn't matter because the point is that this tells us about as much (if not less, because it's done as an advert rather than a 'concept' render, which at least attempts to give an glimpse of what the game is *cough* 'intended' to look like) about the game as, well, a game as the Killzone or indeed Halo RTS cgi does. 

It's no more important in judging the game than, say, the boxshot or pre-rendered intro is.  So why get excited over it differently to every other advert out there?  Why not have threads for every CGI-ad we see for a game?  And then people 'woot it'll be great' etc based on less than a minute of what isn't even real footage - it's like posting a trailer for a movie when the trailer doesn't actually even have any scenes from the movie in it.

[Turnsky]

Why not have threads for every CGI-ad we see for a game?

you're tempting fate right there, meladdio.. 

[Roanoke]

Reminds me of the good old days when Amstrad  cassette games carried screen shots of better machines on the cases so the actual game never looked as good as it appeared 

[Thor]

well, I liked it.  coulda been longer, etc etc...it was still a nice little bit of animation.  and it was definitely ALL cg.  watch the HD version if anyone is still thinking its live action at the start.

Which said, makes it really impressive how much more awesome the cg is for a 30 sec-minute long video game trailer then many major motion pictures that came out not that long ago.  so come movie industry, if a video game ad can get it right, why can't you?  there is no excuse for bad cg now.

[Turnsky]

well, I liked it.  coulda been longer, etc etc...it was still a nice little bit of animation.  and it was definitely ALL cg.  watch the HD version if anyone is still thinking its live action at the start.

Which said, makes it really impressive how much more awesome the cg is for a 30 sec-minute long video game trailer then many major motion pictures that came out not that long ago.  so come movie industry, if a video game ad can get it right, why can't you?  there is no excuse for bad cg now.

it could've been longer, yes, but don't forget this was made to show during a football game.. and you know how antsy those devoted fans get if you keep them waiting for more than a few seconds. 

[Maxwell]

Advertisements are nothing but lies and deception. They only wish to flash fancy pictures in our face so they can cheat us out of our hard earned monies!

Dear oh dear, say it aint so!   

Personally I think the best part of halo has been its largely unused back story. It makes a somewhat flat game seem deeper than it would be otherwise.  They'll most likely aim to fan out and link as much of it to this one as possible, to make more canon-fodder(pun intended) for lucrative spinoffs down the road.

This is the hottest game in microsofts existing lineup after all.

[aldo_14]

Which said, makes it really impressive how much more awesome the cg is for a 30 sec-minute long video game trailer then many major motion pictures that came out not that long ago.  so come movie industry, if a video game ad can get it right, why can't you?  there is no excuse for bad cg now.

Lets bear in mind this was a minute-ish long clip, made using game assets, set in a game world, and on a far smaller screen (note; the highest soon-to-be-deployed cinema screen is 4096x2160; 1080p is by 1920 × 1080 in comparison, and of course HD is still a minority broadcast medium anyways), and by a dedicated CGI studio (http://www.digitaldomain.com/ - although it's not on their site yet). 

Crucially, the cinematographical standards are far lower for a 1 min advert than even a TV series.

So name a major movie 'not that long ago' that looks worse - and keep it in context. MS' cash would make sure they had the best CGI advertisers doing this, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking it'd be that simply to translate to an actual movie.

[Deepblue]

Y'see, this is the thing.  As with Killzone - or the Brothers In Arms, Call of Duty etc adverts - there's nothing actually saying this isn't CGI to the viewer.

Ultimately, though, this doesn't matter because the point is that this tells us about as much (if not less, because it's done as an advert rather than a 'concept' render, which at least attempts to give an glimpse of what the game is *cough* 'intended' to look like) about the game as, well, a game as the Killzone or indeed Halo RTS cgi does. 

It's no more important in judging the game than, say, the boxshot or pre-rendered intro is.  So why get excited over it differently to every other advert out there?  Why not have threads for every CGI-ad we see for a game?  And then people 'woot it'll be great' etc based on less than a minute of what isn't even real footage - it's like posting a trailer for a movie when the trailer doesn't actually even have any scenes from the movie in it.

How about the REAL LIFE kids. Furthermore, it does have elements of Halo 3 in it. Nothing was done by the studio without Bungie's direction. The use of the kids, the shield grenade, sprinting, weapons on back (already confirmed in game), heavily armored Brutes, etc.

[Ghostavo]

The kids are CG... or the image has been edited in a bizarre way.

[bloated]

it could've been longer, yes, but don't forget this was made to show during a football game.. and you know how antsy those devoted fans get if you keep them waiting for more than a few seconds.

let alone how expensive that particular ad-space is.

The kids are CG... or the image has been edited in a bizarre way.

Polar Express style imaging? or pure CG.

[aldo_14]

How about the REAL LIFE kids. Furthermore, it does have elements of Halo 3 in it. Nothing was done by the studio without Bungie's direction. The use of the kids, the shield grenade, sprinting, weapons on back (already confirmed in game), heavily armored Brutes, etc.

As I said, no more representative of the real game as a Call of Duty CGI advert.  Hell, you're even reinforcing my point - it shows nothing indicative of the quality or working state of the game (it's a rendered advert).  What is notable about it?  Oooh, explosions.  He runs towards a bunch of enemies.  Fade to black.  That's it. 

Why is this notable?  The main gameplay 'aspects' shown are a) you have a shield b) you can move forward and c) you can jump.  Whoop-de-do.  Why are we, in effect, having a thread debating an advert?  Did we have threads debating the banner ads when we were at 3dap?  This is nothing.  It's an advert.  A trailer.  60 seconds of guff to sell something that's not even in beta yet.

(NB: link - http://www.eurogamer.net/tv_video.php?playlist_id=1488&s=l

Moreso, the kids are either CGI or it's the worst art shot I've seen, intended to make them look like CGI.  Why on earth would they use real kids?  It only jarrs the inherent unreality of even the best rendered sequence.  and why does real...sorry REAL LIFE KIDS make one iota of difference to the fundamental pointlessness and inanity of posting this topic about a ****ing advert?  It's not as if they skimped on paying for it on TV, after all)