I think it means that it's popular.

You should get it now.

It shows if someone quoted your post.

Yup, that's my view on the engine for Halo games - it's targeting a lot of activity on-screen, split screen, a big, epic SF feel.  By definition such an engine is not going to be trying to have the highest resolution, particle count, etc.

I think what we're going to see is a nice boost from Halo 3 engine but sure, technically for those counting pixels it's unlikely to match titles actively targeting a certain grapical fidelity.

Mind you, playing Devil's Advocate with myself, although I never expect Bungie to deliver the ulitmate technical showcase, they must have enough money from Halo titles so far to push the envelope pretty far on the 360 if they decided to in terms of staff they could hire, research they could conduct, etc.  So we'll see.

yawn

The trailer using the "in-game engine" is almost a meaningless comment.

(a) It could have been rendered with the in-game engine, but not in real-time.
(b) It could have been rendered with the in-game engine, but not with the in-game assets, and not in real-time.
Cutscenes, even when rendered in-game or in real-time, almost always use specially made scenery and animations, to allow for higher quality cinematics.
(d) Bungie is genious to have their main character not have a face. Skin shaders, facial animation, and skin/face rendering techniques are notoriously difficult to do well, and having that helmet on their main characters makes their game look hot -- relative to games that have to render faces that approximate something we are all instinctively programmed to recognize (human faces), and thus almost impossible to "fool".

I don't doubt that Reach will look better than Halo 3. Comparing this trailer to released games, however, is kinda pointless, for the above reasons.  Comparing Spartan helmets to faces is particularly lame.

Seriously, why do you guys think racers, like Forza and GT, look so "real"?  Its because they're rendering something that is a piece of cake to model with a computer -- shiny metallic and glass surfaces with well-defined mathematical curves.  Inflexible, inorganic, in real-life, as well as on your TV.  The Human face, with regards to making it look realistic via rendering?  Not even in the same ballpark.

The fact is that the game is going to look good...the most important thing is gameplay gameplay gameplay...not graphics.

u can tell by the detail on that aliens mouth at the end of the trailer that it was bs

It is pointless to argue which game is better, what is important is Halo Reach will look like Halo 3 should have. I remember Halo 3 being one of the first the gen games I saw and my first reaction was these graphics suck. REACHES graphics satisfy my graphics obsession thats all that should matter.

I  agree, but it is such an improvement this is little more than nit picking small details.

The trailer looked fantastic. But I also agree that cutscene graphics look better than in game graphics. I look forward to seeing what the gameplay holds.