Halo 4′s O’Connor: “I expect this generation will last a lot more years”

Thursday, 4th October 2012 07:56 GMT By Dave Cook

Halo 4 developer 343 Industries has suggested that the Xbox 360 isn’t at the end of its lifespan in terms of technical capabilities. The franchise development director has explained why the console’s malleable tech allows it to evolve.

Speaking with, O’conner said of people asking him about the Xbox 360 reaching its limit, “The funny thing is I’ve been asked that question a lot, I think it’s natural as we start looking forward to the next generation of hardware.”

“But I would actually strongly contest the fact that the Xbox 360 is at the end of its life cycle,” O’Connor continued, “this has already been one of the longest generations and there’s a really good reason for it, which is that current consoles are incredibly flexible and still really powerful.”

“The reason that Halo 4 looks good is that that machine has an awful lot of untapped power still and it’s going to continue to. I think that looking forward into the future I can see years from now, even after next-gen platforms are out, that you’ll have lower priced versions of the existing consoles happily living side by side and serving really valuable functions.”

“Not just becoming the little brothers like cast offs, but still being your Netflix player, still being you DVD player, your Blu-ray player in the case of the PS3, and still doing really vital things around your house. And that means if people are still using it they’re still going to want gaming experiences on it.”

“I would say that I expect this generation will last a lot more years. Now you’ve got your hardcore fans who are going to look at that statement and say ‘but I want new hardware.’ We know new hardware is going to come, it always does, but I think the utility of the older consoles is going to last longer than ever before.”

What do you think? Are consoles more than just their raw technical power? Let us know below, and be sure to check out our own interview with Halo 4′s Frank O’ Connor here.



  1. roadkill

    Wow! Look at Cortana’s tits! Isn’t that a bit too much!? :)

    #1 2 years ago
  2. Fin


    Grow up

    #2 2 years ago
  3. OrbitMonkey

    @2, tbh the guys got a point. Cortana is stacked!

    #3 2 years ago
  4. Da Man

    It’s liberal conscious Cortana, designed for hardcore artists who choose to have pleasures and then disappear сompletely into oblivion.

    Quite simply, it’s evolution.

    #4 2 years ago
  5. Keivz

    Back on topic. I think on some level he has a point. While playing Uncharted 3 all I caught myself thinking ‘next gen? we don’t need no stinkin’ next gen! The next gen is already here!’ I have a feeling the “next gen” graphics will lag behind that game for a year or two!

    Granted new hardware may bring other new or improved game mechanics to the table and I think the next gen will be here next year like it or not. I honestly wouldn’t mind another couple years of our current gen (it’d save me a hardware upgrade, too!).

    #5 2 years ago
  6. Hcw87

    You’re using UC3 as a benchmark for current gen graphics? lol, just lol.

    That game is horribly overrated, both gameplay wise and graphics.

    #6 2 years ago
  7. Gadzooks!

    LOL, Uncharted is a prime example of the limitations of hardware and the painfully obvious compromises required to produce the game.

    It’s *extremely* limited in scope, with tiny restrictive play areas, and little to no environment interaction. It’s the very definition of superficial narrow corridor gaming. Michael Bay levels of depth.

    Not that it isn’t fun, but it isn’t showing hardware muscle. It’s showing compromises.

    Compare that to Witcher 2 for example. Not quite the same level of visual polish (although very close), but it’s free-roaming and interactive. Not just a parade of nice matte skyboxes, but actual 3d environments populated with NPCs.

    That’s a much better example of what current gen hardware is capable of.

    Memory segregation means the PS3 is unlikely to hit that level.

    There is another thing: PS3 devs have played all their cards. They have been coding directly to the hardware, squeezing everything possible from the awkward, restrictive PS3 architecture.

    360 devs ALL use the DirectX layer because it’s mandated by MS. Let them loose on the hardware level and who knows what they could achieve.

    There is still plenty to come from the 360. Halo 4 is showing unmatched visuals (again, with scope and depth) whereas the PS3 peaked a long time ago.

    #7 2 years ago
  8. Gekidami

    ^ lol “with tiny restrictive play areas, and little to no environment interaction.”

    Yep, clearly someone whose never played any of the games.

    360 is dead in the water, has been for a long time. Halo 4 is probably one of the better looking games to come out for it in the last 3 years, but thats mainly because its totally devoid of actual games in the first place. And even then, visually its closer to R3 rather than UC3 or KZ3. Nah, the 360 just doesnt have the humph, it might do, too bad MS’ first parties are too busy making games where you flail your arms in the air rather then decent stuff, trying to show what the system can do.

    #8 2 years ago
  9. Gadzooks!


    Hehe, you’re funny.

    And very wrong.

    #9 2 years ago

    This could get nasty…

    #10 2 years ago
  11. OrbitMonkey

    @10, Hope so, my popcorn is ready! :-D

    #11 2 years ago
  12. absolutezero

    Does Halo 4 have any sort of shoe-horned Kinect usage?

    They added in shouting at the screen stuff with Halo Anniversary. I just thought it a bit odd that they are not forcing everyone down the Kinect path with the one game that a hell of alot of people are going to buy and be forced to play on the 360.

    #12 2 years ago
  13. polygem

    @8: i really think UC3 is a beautiful game but to me halo 4 looks 100 times better and by the way to me halo 4 would be enough reason to buy a brandnew 360 off the shelve today if i had to just to play this game. 360 aint dead. it really is the biggest exclusive game (i mean after mario;)). that said: i really do not like those realistic looks in games that much and i truly cannot understand why most people seem to prefer and demand this artistic style. i rememeber the outrage when windwaker came along and when borderlands changed it´s design from dark and gritty to more colorful and cel shaded. to me those games benefited from that A LOT. i definiteley prefer the clean artdesign of a halo game. it is clean, slick and ultrapolished. the animations are the smoothest you can get.
    everytime i play BF3 i think to myself – i wish it wouldn´t try so hard to be so damn realistic…because in the end it fails to deliver, it has clumsy animations, has flat textures here and there and other obvious issues. artwork like in halo games or say zelda skyward sword with a more clean and slick but perfect design and great artwork can suck me into a gaming world so much more.
    graphics are important, but way too overrated. i know this is old but it is true. gameplay, art- and sounddesign make a great game….just look at the ds castlevania games. they beat UC3!

    #13 2 years ago
  14. polygem

    @Cortana discussion: yea quite huge boobs. but i don´t care about her boobies much. look at those blackworklike electro whatsoever glowing stuff on her body. looks better than ever. i am having 2 solid black arms too and lots of other blackwork on me….i must say, cortana has some sweet looking art on her. rather inspiring. where did she get those virtual tats from. will that be revealed in the story. does the chief have a secret microsoft tattoo (on his butt)? that´s the questions i want to get answered, not why her titisize did increase.

    #14 2 years ago
  15. Moonwalker1982


    Check the E3 video of Halo 4 and compare that to R3(resistance 3, right?) R3 isn’t even a really pretty game at all. I think it looks better than Uncharted 3 and Killzone 3 actually.

    #15 2 years ago
  16. Gadzooks!


    But its important to remember what is happening in the game, visuals aside.

    You simply dont get the unscripted AI and wide open environments in KZ or Resistance that you do in Halo.


    MC has a tattoo of a robot smoking a cigar on his butt cheek, which when magnified shows a code. Reading the code opens a time portal.

    I saw that on a documentary I think.

    #16 2 years ago
  17. polygem

    @16: :D

    #17 2 years ago
  18. polygem

    kinda looks like the real thing….ouch…

    #18 2 years ago
  19. Keivz

    I’m curious if the Uncharted 3 haters have actually played the game. I was skeptical and more or less in your camp before I actually played it (instead of watching youtube clips). It is an amazing game to look at and is frankly unmatched visually when taken as a whole. The textures all look great, the faces are top of the line, the hair (facial and otherwise) is very detailed, even drake’s arabian scarf had me in awe. Plus there’s virtually no object clipping to speak of which is nearly unheard of in today’s games. The environments are eyepopping and can be quite large too (the shipyard level anyone?). I never once felt the game was being ‘compromised’ or ‘restricted’ because of the hardware. To be honest, the only game I think comes close to UC3′s visual fidelity is RE5 in some of its cutscenes.

    I’m playing the witcher 2 right now (on PC no less) and though it does look quite good; it doesn’t touch UC3 in terms of animation, or even character models. Granted it’s more freeroaming but it’s hardly ‘interactive’. But that’s beside the point because I’m speaking strictly visuals here.

    It’s hard to judge halo 4 without actually playing it but it’s a much different game than the rest (first person, no cloth physics, mostly sterile environments, etc). And I’m not saying the 360 isn’t capable of such tech (and I do own one, fwiw), but UC3 is the current graphical champion imo.

    #19 2 years ago
  20. polygem

    i for one played all the uc games, (even golden abyss) and i totally agree that they all look awesome. they are technically great. good games. maybe they even really are the best from a technical point of view on the consoles. but if you say graphics and mean artdesign and tech combined, then uc isn´t in my book for the best looking games. not at all. there was a huge amount of hype involved too. i sureley think reach is graphically a very underrated game. esp. if you take the multiplayer. it looks like straight out of the campaign. the multiplayer! and it is smooth as hell. have you played uc3 online. it´s a mess to say the least…you have to look at the whole package imo. you cannot seperate graphics from everything else in gamedesign and in the gamedesign department uc 3 was pretty good, but far from greatness.

    #20 2 years ago
  21. Ge0force

    @13: “i really think UC3 is a beautiful game but to me halo 4 looks 100 times better”

    I stopped reading right there. The environments in Uncharted have so much more details than Halo 4, and The Last of Us does even better.

    #21 2 years ago
  22. Dragon246

    UC multiplayer is better now, with constant updates rolling out. But opinion can vary :)
    Stop feeding the troll.He still cant get Triss out of his mind, and yet calls other “children”. Also convienently forgets about infamous series, one of the best open world games this gen.
    A digital foundry article will prove you true :)
    Its the best looking game on console with the most amazing storyline. fact.

    #22 2 years ago
  23. Da Man

    Newsflash, a scripted corridor shooter looks better than Halo.

    Gz, please don’t mind those guys much. What kind of a person would have their account name linking to a so called ‘gaming website’ with an Xbox category completely missing?.. Yeah.

    #23 2 years ago
  24. Hcw87

    Uncharted 3 was just too similar to UC2 with hardly any innovations. And what’s so fun when even playing on EASY you need more than FOUR headshots to drop certain enemies (the big heavies)? Even after dropping their helmets. Completely breaks immersion.

    Also @22, infamous was great, Infamous 2 was a real bad sequel. Sequels seems to be crap on the PS3, no offense.

    #24 2 years ago
  25. Gadzooks!


    I dont expect many of the commentors here to even understand the concept of technical accomplishment/hardware muscle versus artistry, let alone make any intelligible remarks.

    The usual knuckledraggers are incapable of anything more inciteful than ‘Durrrr. I like du pretty hair and shirt and stuff’ as they trudge through foot-wide pathways, cutscenes and QTE’s.

    Still, ignorance is bliss for some.

    #25 2 years ago
  26. DrDamn

    I’m finally playing through UC3 now. Played UC1 – some great bits but not as good as opinions suggest, fair amount of screen tear too. UC2 – one of my favourite games this generation. UC3 – I’d disagree with @24 because UC3 has a lot more of the spectacular but feel like a passenger stuff from UC2 and not enough of the really good stuff. So it’s not similar enough for my liking.

    The UC series is best when levels open up and big fire-fights ensue. Where you can approach the fight how you want, take the high ground, head for a particular weapon pick-up, go melee etc. Here it is very far away from a scripted corridor shooter.

    #26 2 years ago
  27. Da Man

    Very true, #25. I mean, those jrpgs on PSX probably ‘looked better’ than Quake3..

    Compared to something like Halo, yes it is. A pretty one, but a corridor game it is. Hardly anything close to Reach Spire level, let alone editable Forge World.

    #27 2 years ago
  28. polygem

    @21: ohh…too bad you are such a lazy reader. you shouldn´t have stopped reading there. i explained why after you stopped reading. i said something about details too.

    #28 2 years ago

Comments are now closed on this article.