CGI trailers are everywhere in game marketing and widely understood to be a weaker signal than gameplay footage. The reason is structural rather than a matter of taste, and understanding it makes reading trailers much faster.
Why studios make them
A rendered trailer can be produced from concept art and a fraction of the game's assets. A gameplay trailer requires a build that runs. That build has to be stable enough to record, which for a game in production means engineering time diverted from the game itself.
So a CGI trailer is often the only kind a studio can afford at a given point in the schedule. When you see one, it frequently means the game exists but is not yet at a state where showing raw footage would be representative.
How much to discount it
The discount is large but not total. A CGI trailer is reliable about art direction, setting, tone, and broad mechanics. It is unreliable about visual fidelity, performance, and how the game actually plays, because none of that is represented.
It is also entirely reliable as a statement of what the publisher wants you to believe the game is. When a trailer spends ninety seconds on one mechanic, that mechanic is the sales pitch, not necessarily the centre of the game.
The genre-reel red flag
Trailers that cut between footage of several different games carry no information about the game being advertised. They exist to prime you about a genre. This is most common for publishers with a large catalogue trying to sell a game that is a small part of it, and it is a reasonable signal that the game itself will be a minor release for them.
The real signal to wait for
Extended gameplay from a creator given publisher access, unedited and long enough to show a full loop, is worth more than every trailer combined. It is also the hardest thing for a publisher to control, which is why it tends to appear close to launch rather than during the announcement cycle.