Slightly Live
Dirty tag dodger
Digital Limit said:
Halo Wars did spoil the party.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
The Official Halo 3 Thread
- Thread starter GhaleonEB
- Start date
- Status
Halo Wars did spoil the party.
The Wise Old Man
Member
Digital Limit said:
Yet another reason why the Halo Wars map pack bundle was a crappy idea. Phased rollouts make no sense for DLC.
Looking forward to downloading this when I get home. Just wishing the sandbox bricks were a different color... ah well.
Dani said:
The ad accomplished it's purpose in garnering excitement and a reaction.
The definition of advertising vs. design.
Design seeks to communicate a message, while advertising is intent on influencing behavior. Similar but different.
In such intents, deception is commonplace in advertising, and an ad should never be considered an unbiased, or even an honest source of information because it's ultimate goal is to elicit a reaction.. and not to be trusted.
I would say that in this regard, the ads were deceptive to the keen observer.. but you still got very much what was advertised. A sci-fi epic encompassing the battle for humankind (in this case all sentient life).
Halo 3 launched to the greatest sales day of all media (since beaten by GTA4).KevinRo said:
I don't know how you could honestly say it was a waste of money. The idea that you don't have to advertise because you think you have something people already want is ridiculous.
So you have metrics on this bullshit you're spitting? No, that's right you don't.
I don't know how you could honestly say the halo audience is a hardcore (or die-hard as you put it) audience. Hasn't the ratio of MLG to casual gamers been enough to point out how off-base hardcore assumptions of this game have been?
Reminding people the game is 2 months out is half the point BTW.
The Librarian
Banned
Ghal, the map is called Outskirts. Change it!
Just bought/checked out the maps solo between classes (didnt feel like getting raped not knowing the maps at all)
I like sandbox, seems like it will be fun. Assembly seems like it should be cool. Orbital is a big WTF, I couldnt figure out the layout at all.
Will be playing them tonight, finally some new maps woot.
I like sandbox, seems like it will be fun. Assembly seems like it should be cool. Orbital is a big WTF, I couldnt figure out the layout at all.
Will be playing them tonight, finally some new maps woot.
neoism said:OK Eazy the damn chopper is awesome on Sandbox!:lol :lol :lol
I was surprised at how wrong I was about the chopper/warthog dominating sandbox. They both feel perfectly balanced given the overall layout of the map paired with the rockets/pods. It works pretty well.
Dirtbag said:
Listen dirtbag, who the hell answers their own question? Seriously, is something up your butt or do you always reply like you are on your period?
Dirtbag said:
I'm not talking about entire halo3 add campaign you imbecile. If you read the thread over and take your head out of your ass maybe you could actually process what was being discussed. Of course advertising is important, no one is saying it isn't but those specific ads mentioned in the article did nothing than to pander to halo core audience. Now if you want to discuss whether or not if those specific ads had an impact I would be more than happy to discuss that.
Dirtbag said:
Are you on fucking crack? Where the hell do I say the halo audience is hardcore only? I never did. I specifically wrote that die-hard and non die-hard fans were being targeted. I said they should have targeted a new audience to draw in new fans. Up your reading comprehension and actually read my post before you spit something out of your mouth.
Pretty much always on my periods around these 'nerds' -as you put it.KevinRo said:
Pander to halo core audience? They didn't even show gameplay??
Most of GAF didn't get it. They sparked curiosity about the brand and experience to the point that I had people that wouldn't consider picking up a console (let alone halo) asking me what this halo stuff was about. There is just no evidence to support claims that was anything but an extremely succcessful ad campaign. All the numbers are in my corner.
I think I did misunderstand you. Now that I follow you, I think you are still wrong.
It should be noted that the marketing campaign for Halo 3 consisted of a great deal more than just the TV spots. The website ARG (remember the servers unlocking?), the trailers and vidocs, the print ad, etc. were all aimed squarely at the hardcore or previous Halo game fans. A tv ad is the widest of all marketing mediums, where the number of people unfamiliar with the product the ad can communicate to is highest. On that count, it makes perfect sense to take a different approach.
I think the ad (and subsequent extended web ads) were all superb in how they portrayed the universe. They were executed beautifully and they had an odd emotional impact on me. They were also entirely devoid of context for those unfamiliar with the product, and as such worked best on those already familiar with the game.
Part of my issue with the ad is philosophical: I think ads for games should feature the game. The Halo universe is bigger than just the game, of course. But even going in a different route, they could at least have made the ad tie back to the game in some way, shape or form. As is, it's a superbly executed high-concept ad that likely convinced absolutely no one to buy the actual product, because those who needed convincing either had no idea what the ad was for, or lacked the ability to evaluate the product based on the ad. All it did was let people know it was out, and I think there are better ways to do that.
FWIW, I think the single best ad for Halo 3 was Halo 2. Which is why, alongside the the marketing aimed at previous owners I mentioned above, an ad that basically said, "here it is" would have gotten the same sales result. I think it was a blown marketing opportunity; a strange hybrid of a brilliantly conceived and executed yet utterly ineffective ad.
But this is so 2007.
I think the ad (and subsequent extended web ads) were all superb in how they portrayed the universe. They were executed beautifully and they had an odd emotional impact on me. They were also entirely devoid of context for those unfamiliar with the product, and as such worked best on those already familiar with the game.
Part of my issue with the ad is philosophical: I think ads for games should feature the game. The Halo universe is bigger than just the game, of course. But even going in a different route, they could at least have made the ad tie back to the game in some way, shape or form. As is, it's a superbly executed high-concept ad that likely convinced absolutely no one to buy the actual product, because those who needed convincing either had no idea what the ad was for, or lacked the ability to evaluate the product based on the ad. All it did was let people know it was out, and I think there are better ways to do that.
FWIW, I think the single best ad for Halo 3 was Halo 2. Which is why, alongside the the marketing aimed at previous owners I mentioned above, an ad that basically said, "here it is" would have gotten the same sales result. I think it was a blown marketing opportunity; a strange hybrid of a brilliantly conceived and executed yet utterly ineffective ad.
But this is so 2007.
Rodeo Clown
All aboard! The Love train!
Thank you and my bad. When a thread gets this big, I don't generally think to read the OP.vhfive said:
Slightly Live
Dirty tag dodger
GhaleonEB said:
Stop stealing my thoughts. =P
Captain Blood
Member
Probably old but a friend just forwarded this link to me for the emo Halo fans who want to hurt themselves:
http://www.trueswords.com/covenant-energy-sword-video-game-sword-replica-type1-p-4030.html
http://www.trueswords.com/covenant-energy-sword-video-game-sword-replica-type1-p-4030.html
No doubtneoism said:OK Eazy the damn chopper is awesome on Sandbox!:lol :lol :lol
Way too many rockets with way too frequent spawns. Makes the warthog pretty useless and you really gotta know what you're doing to chopper without getting immediately owned by:Dirtbag said:
2 Missile pods
2 Power Drainers
8 (or more plasma nades)
2 rockets with 4 shots each
2 brute shots
That's a whole lot of antivehicle shit for a relatively small vehicular map.
Agree with all of this.GhaleonEB said:
I totally understand your issue, but there is no rule book in advertising.
The whole idea is to stand out from the pack, so in this regard this ad is extremely successful. The end goals are obviously to sell the games but its also selling the entire universe and making a brand impression. If you seed the idea that Halo is a bigger then life, bigger then mere video game experience.. there is no end to what you can do with the universe, and it builds even more equity in very title alone. Stocks go up, your value is raised. This touches on your next point.
They could have, sure... but they didn't need to. And as it stands they have created a marketing milestone. It's a risk vs. reward and this one payed out.
It also seeds the idea that MS understands America, a mindshare that you aren't seeing from Sony camp. It's all connected.
And makes them curious as to what it is, which drives investigation and sales. And that's all it needs to do.
So if Halo 2 was the best ad (which is certainly a great point), then all you would need to advertise with Halo 3 is the date you could buy it on.... So you've kind of backtracked on your own point of the necessity of showing the game (halo3). The reputation is already rock solid, so why not go high-concept?
Blown marketing opportunity?? MS won multiple marketer of the year awards.
The campaign was decorated to high-heaven. The game blew sales records out the water.
And it's an extremely memorable, and iconic ad campaign that marks a shift in videogame positioning and perception across the entire populus... what more do you want?
Slightly Live
Dirty tag dodger
Dirtbag said:
A shift in videogame positioning and perception? Hmm.
Dani said:
Would you disagree that this entire gaming generation is going mainstream in ways never before
The ways games are being marketed and positioned in the industry is radically different then it has ever been, and I would have no problems placing Halo in that ring.
Halo is one of the superbrands of the industry.. and it's not entirely bungie's accomplishment even though they obviously played the largest part in it.
Slightly Live
Dirty tag dodger
Dirtbag said:
To be honest, I think the 360/PS3 demographic is the same as the Xbox/PS2 demographic. Stop a few strangers on the street and ask them about Halo 3. I'm pretty certain most folks will not know what you are talking about. Ask the same folks about Wii Sports or Wii Fit? You'll probally get a response.
Halo 3, I think did a brilliant job appealing to the same demographic that the Halo series always has, it didn't change anything. The game was expected to do well, the game's polish and feature set blew other lesser games away and the quality set so high, it's still regularly played by millions. The same millions that have always played though. You ain't seeing soccer moms or grannys in matchmaking.
I do agree that this generation has seen mainstream penetration unlike any other before it, but it's clear that this is mainly down to the Wii. (I'm excluding handhelds.) The 360 and PS3 has catered to the traditional audience. That audience does grow as it ages, gamers will always be gamers no matter the age, but Halo 3 and it's marketing couldn't even begin to touch the true mainstream appeal or any of the main Wii titles. It was successful, outstandingly so but I don't think it had much appeal outside of the tried and tested demographic they gunned for with the two previous titles, and no matter how many awards it won, I don't think it did. I've seen no evidence of it.
Good points. Agreed pretty much throughout.Dani said:
What I'm relating about the Halo 3 campaign... is that there has never been a game advertised in that manner (much less so successfully) and in that regards it is a major milestone. Between Mad World and Believe, something changed in big budget video game marketing, and it definitely started somewhere with Halo 2 and it's monolithic marketing campaign. Notice anything about these 3 games besides monster ad budgets? Monster sales, monster hype. I think people need to give a little more credit to the believe campaign that helped accomplish all of this, while never showing a single frame of gameplay or even referencing it. That's an amazing feat and certain speaks volumes to the ridiculous amount of equity in the halo brand.
I didn't say there is a rule book in advertising. My reason for this point was simple: I have a personal preference for how game ad should be done. Part of the reason for pointing this out is so that you can note it and thus dismiss that part of my reasoning, because it's one we're just going to disagree on. I was trying to assist in your counter argument; no need to belabor it.Dirtbag said:
And it really does come down to what the objective of the ad is. It was successful on some fronts, and not on others. (And when I say "it" here, I'm referring to the entire diorama campaign, not just the one TV ad.) It certainly adds to the Halo universe in an interesting way. If that's their goal, mission accomplished. But I think their goal, as you said, was to sell games. And ultimately an ad made to promote a game should do something to further that goal, not just be a side-note to the Halo universe. The ad didn't need to reference Halo 3 at all - just the Halo universe. And that's the problem with it as an ad for Halo 3.
I'm all for marketing milestones, I just don't think it sold anyone on the game. Again, if their aim was to speak to existing Halo fans, the ad is a rousing success. If the goal is to expand the universe in a way to make it accessible to non-players as a way of attracting them to the Halo 3 video game by Bungie and published by Microsoft Game Studios, epic fail. There is no context for those people to associate the game to the ad. Did it make a splash? Sure. Did it help the game? Dunno. I don't see how it possibly could.
I honestly don't have the slightest idea what this means. Please don't mistake this as a request to explain it.
That's a valid approach to advertising. One way is to pitch the product directly. Another is to pitch something tangentially related to the product, hoping to attract the curious. I don't know enough about marketing to evaluate the best approach here. But I think when you are advertising something as specific as a video game, you need to at least inform viewers a to what the hell you are trying to advertise.
No, the two points go hand in hand. Tell people what is coming, and show them. The Halo 2 ad works because it makes me say, "holy shit I want to play that" and tells me when I can do so. The Halo 3 ad makes people say, "hmm, interesting. What was that about?"
Again, the "success" of the ad depends on the goal.
Lots of albums and movies win awards but don't make much money. But beyond that, you're entirely ignoring the fact that I specifically and repeatedly praise the ad for being creative, well executed and emotionally resonant. I think it deserved the recognition and awards. I also think it was a bad ad for Halo 3.
Again, part of my issue is philosophical, and can't be reasoned with. It's tied to a larger picture here. As I get older, its deeply gratifying to see games become more and more a mainstream, integrated part of American culture. Part of what I enjoy is that gaming is something that's not just percieved to be about basement nerds and rejects wasting time in front of the TV, which is how I was steriotyped growing up.
I feel like ads like this do the game a disservice. It tucks the game behind the scenes, making it secondary to some marketer's high concept. It's making an excuse for the game being a game - it has to be part of something bigger, rather than just be a game. I think games are so impressive these days, they deserve to be on full display when marketing them. Halo 3 is a beautiful game, and I wish that was shown in the ad.
To put it differently: I don't see any trailers for movies excluding all footage from the movie. I don't see them being advertised as part of some bigger abstract universe - they are made to sell the movie. Even when there's books, CDs, toys and all kinds of other merchandising that goes with it - just like Halo. Ditto for music - you generally hear some of the music in an ad for a CD to go along side the visuals. Granted, games are an interactive medium, but I likewise think ads for games that likewise include the actual game. I don't think an ad for a game that never shows or references the game makes any sense whatsoever.
To be clear, I've said the same thing about every ad for a game that didn't show the game predominantly. I remember saying all this same stuff about the Dreamcast ads ("it's thinking") where they showed characters inside the game, and then two seconds of actual footage at the end. Dumb. The difference is, those were bad ads that didn't sell anyone on the product, and this was a brilliant ad that also didn't sell anyone on the product.
Slightly Live
Dirty tag dodger
Dirtbag said:
I certainly agree that the Believe campaign was amazingly successful. You stated "never showing a single frame of gameplay or even referencing it", now that I think about it, this itself has been the method employed by marketers for years pimping various games. I remember reading various reason why they took that route, the general public was put off by gameplay footage. Certainly FMV or whatever else would be used other than gameplay footage, would have more mass appeal.
The Believe campaign took this tried and tested route. I thought it was a cop out, taking the easiest known method for game ads. Of course, I'm not at all saying that the actual ad was without merit or it wasn't innovative in other areas, it certainly was.
So it avoided gameplay. It also depicted something most people are familar with, war. It showed a very, very detailed battle scene. Hundreds of people and aliens getting messed up, up close, in a familiar environment. It heavily suggested close combative and ugliness or war and all the emotions you'd expect. This isn't the problem, the problem stems from the actual product played by the folks that have seen this ad. Some of the themes from the ad, the game just didn't live up to. I didn't feel emotional when playing Halo 3. I don't know anyone that did. The ad was emotional, and it's not unreasonable to expect the ad to convey the theme of the product, so where was that theme in Halo 3? Even with major character deaths I didn't feel it. The ad also conveyed fighting and struggling beside real men, not super humans. The game delivered a few guys that stood around you abit and died quickly, no player really cared if they lived or died, they were expendable.
The problem, I think, was not the ad campaign itself, just the comparisons, easily made, to advertised product.
See, some products do successfully get away with misleading marketing, I think. If I see an ad for a car that promises to drive me to the moon, I am not going to expect to actually drive there. Video games are differant, yes, in a video game, you can probally drive to the moon. There's an expectation I think, as a player, I expect to see what a game allows me to do. This doesn't have to feature gameplay, I can get the message without it. But if an ad shows me fighting hundreds of zombies at the same time and the game, in actual fact, has me fighting a handful at most, I'm going to be annoyed at the ad, even if it was good.
again, good points. I'll need to think about some of that stuff before really answering.
Ghaleon - like you said there is no way of arguing against personal preference, and I don't even disagree with you necessarily from a personal stand-point, the marketing was deceptive but WAS extremely successful in selling the game by playing on reputation and curiosity. If this was Halo CE, it would have been a collassal failure of a campaign - no doubt. But it wasn't, it was Halo 3, a household name. Agree to Disagree.
Ghaleon - like you said there is no way of arguing against personal preference, and I don't even disagree with you necessarily from a personal stand-point, the marketing was deceptive but WAS extremely successful in selling the game by playing on reputation and curiosity. If this was Halo CE, it would have been a collassal failure of a campaign - no doubt. But it wasn't, it was Halo 3, a household name. Agree to Disagree.
Dani said:
I think the biggest betrayal was that the tone (visually/verbally) of the ads and the tone of the games didn't come close enough in syncing up. The ads were greys and browns and gritty, and the game is lush and colorful - both physically (or virtually I guess :lol) and philosophically in nature. The game's story, while having grave subject matter of genocide of all life forms, handled the story in a pretty vanilla fashion. There definitely was a disconnect there that far overshadows even the scale achieved (bigger in the diorama ads) and the literal events of the ads never playing out in game. I don't think a 1:1 scene of chief arming a grenade really matters that much in the scope of things in relation to the ad campaign.
What I find irritating is the attempts to separate and critique sections of an ad campaign independent of each other.. as if they don't exist together in the same space. It's unfair to critique a tv campaign and try and remove all other contexts tied to the marketing and understood brand relevance. There was so much going on with the halo3 launch, that looking at any one part alone is missing the bigger picture.
The Librarian
Banned
Objection!Sai-kun said:
Cold-Steel
Member
Orbital is by far the best new map.
/thread
/thread
The Librarian
Banned
Master Chief was in the game, and brutes were in the game. So, there!Sai-kun said:
xxjuicesxx
Member
Slightly Live
Dirty tag dodger
Dirtbag said:
Yeah this is tied to the main point I am trying to make. The ad was specifically misleading in numerous areas. Like advertising a drink with plenty of fizz when the reality is the product, the drink itself is actually a bit flat. (Again, not specifically saying Halo 3 is "flat" in any way!)
At least everyone seems to agree that the ad was good. If it won awards, then it certainly deserves it.
Dirtbag said:
Ah, yes I do understand what you are saying, let me pose a counter point. I think it is entirely fair to critique sections of a campaign separately. Why? Well, in this instance, the whole marketing push for Halo 3 had multiple objective, multiple targets. Some of it was aimed at Hardcore players, such as discussions returning weapons, showcasing specific areas of multiplayer, etc . Some of it was aimed at casuals, for example interviews, showcasing features Halo 3 had that other game did not, Mountain Dew?, screen ads on gaming sites, etc and then the tv campaign. Specially, the tv ad was aimed at a different audience than any vidoc, interviews, magazine covers or website splashes. The target audience, untold millions of viewers is much more broad, less focused and generally less knowledgeable about the product advertised.
Talking about how the SMG has changed, armour permutations, etc will simply not interest or appeal to a television audience, no matter what you are selling, it's far too specific.
I think this is why people, who agree that the ad was amazing well done, will say they aren't happy with it. It does a poor job of getting across some simple messages. Is it a video game or an art exhibit? A movie? A line or toys? I could sit my family down infront of the ad, remove the xbox reference at the very end and have fun seeing them try to figure out what the hell the advert is actually selling.
I honestly do not think it's actually fair to judge Halo 3 marketing push as a single entity. It succeeded in many areas, but, I think, with specifically the Believe tv ad, the mark, as in the general public, average joe, was missed. I also think it's fair to also say that the tv campaign is the pillar of the whole marketing assault, as it reaches more people than any vidoc or interview possibly could. Is it not also true then, that the point of a tv campaign is raise brand or product awareness in those people that generally would not know about a brand or product? If so, can you honestly say that the advert succeeded in increasing the average viewer's awareness of Halo 3, that it was a video game, has a certain identity and is available within a set timeframe?
I think it was hit and miss for the reasons I have posted before. The tv advert succeeded, generally speaking, it was a good ad, but at the end of the day, I very much doubt it lead to people buying the game if they hadn't already considered it, meaning, I think it didn't convert anyone who wasn't at least partially familiar with it. And additionally, it did set up expectations that the actual product didn't deliver.
BladedExpert
Member
EazyB said:
I think its perfectly fine for Multi Flag BR's. Never had an issue with that gametype. Slayer is questionable though
Shake Appeal
Member
I actually feel the opposite. Slayer types have more variety to them, whereas any symmetrical gametype where the teams spawn in the bases always seems to end in a clusterfuck of grenade in the middle, followed by a very ugly war of attrition up and down the long corridors. It feels extremely limited in the ways you can assault the bases, or defend them.BladedExpert said:
BladedExpert
Member
Shake Appeal said:
I quite enjoy that war of attrition. Although it is pretty limited, there are opportunities for sneakyness and or well planned attacks on a base. There's at least three ways to attack a base. I can see why it wouldn't appeal (excuse the pun) to every one though.
See stop right there. That's the hurdle most of you can't seem to get over.Dani said:
You are selling the third part of a trilogy, after a cliff hanger ending for a game that broke sales records in it's own (H2), so let's all stop pretending that this isn't established. This is Star Wars. You say halo to someone, and by and large, people from a really broad target demographic know what it is.
But it does have the xbox logo at the end. If it didn't have the logo, url, and release date... yeah it would be a failure. Keep in mind, this is Star Wars Return of the Jedi, you say halo, and people expect it is a videogame and not a comic book, or a movie, or art.
You have no choice. They didn't exist in a vacuum and its the momentum of repeat viewings impressions, etc on a single person that ultimately have the greatest impact. When you keep running into and hearing about this giant event everywhere you go. It would be like jury selection trying to find a person who only ever saw that one tv spot, and hadn't heard of Halo once before that moment. And even then, is he really your target market for part 3 of a trilogy, do you really build your campaign around him instead of the much broader group of people that have at least heard of this halo thing before?
YES, wholeheartedly for all the above reasons.
I agree with your closing line about setting up expectations, but I can't pull out a measuring stick to say this is exactly how many units this tv campaign won vs. everything else. Other then to say that the tv campaign is the broadest and most seen portion of any campaign, so by all rational thinking should have the largest sales impact of the advertising methods... if such a thing even mattered. There was all the information / reputation necessary out there that the game sold well ridiculous quantities.
- Status