: Can you bring us up-to-date on how good games are becoming at graphically reproducing reality?
JC: I do think we?re already to the point where you can walk by an office and not tell if someone is watching a basketball game on TV or if they?re playing a video game. Graphics is moving along a continuum toward realism and it?s building up a little more at a time. You?ll be photorealistic in more and more cases. It?s still difficult to do it when someone is right up close in a scene. You can still do it more easily with guys walking around in helmets where you don?t see their faces or facial expressions. You can do high-quality outdoor environments now. But rendering a lot of scenes with close-up interaction remains very difficult. The hardest thing is the close-up.
: When do we actually get to photorealism?
JC: Even 20 years from now, there are tasks you can?t do that show that you?re going to fall short of being able to do realism. You need to keep on improving the technology. It?s getting more subtle. There are nuances to things with slightly better lighting, shadowing, and more effects; doing more moving things on the screen at the same time. It?s a lot better than it used to be.
: You mentioned the quality of animations in basketball games. The newest games do a good job of rendering the players (the movement of cloth in their uniforms), and it looks like you're watching TV?for a moment. But when those players start moving, it looks like there is something out of sync.
JC: One of the problems is that physics interaction is still just beginning. You can do kinematics like rag doll physics, where the characters fall down in a realistic fashion. That?s not as hard. But getting actuators in the right place to show human beings in motion as they make their way across the basketball court, that?s hard.
: How do you get that motion right?
JC: You do motion capture and then replicate it.
: What looks fake?
JC: The physics is neat. I?m not a big proponent of sophisticated artificial intelligence. You can see that going all the way back to Doom; the monster in the game was formulating a plan. But the only thing you really need is that the artificial intelligence shouldn?t do something stupid in front of the player. If they can do that, then that is a good step. The things that will wow people now are formal research on things like squad behavior. But we have come a long way from where artificial intelligence characters did stupid things in the games.
: What do you think of the trend toward open worlds in video games in which the environment gives people much more freedom to roam around rather than follow a predefined path? Is this the way to get closer to realism?
JC: It?s always easier to have a tight design. The more you open it up, the more work you have to do in order to fill out the world and make it all seem real. It?s great to see this stuff with a newfound sense of freedom. I?m not 100% convinced it?s the most interesting way to make games. If you look at movies and the emotional aspect to them, it happens because the camera is up close and following the characters closely. When there isn?t any one true path, it becomes incredibly intricate to keep that experience where it?s still very emotional.
: What are you thinking about doing in the next Wolfenstein?
JC: I?m only peripherally doing it. I?m mostly working on an unannounced title. We?re not talking about that yet.
: What do you think about the graphics quality on today?s game consoles?
JC: The PlayStation 3 hype blows these things way out of proportion. You can buy a PC that now is two times as powerful. It will cost you more, but the resolution will be better on the PC. We were able to do Doom 3 on both the PC and the Xbox. The Xbox had about a third of the performance. For the most part, people didn?t really notice much of a difference. But for now, with Quake 4 on the Xbox 360, it looks better than it does on the PC now. At the moment the differences aren?t worth noticing, but in time the PC will be twice as powerful again. And you?ll notice how it?s going to be better than the consoles.
: Physics chips seem to be all the rage these days. What do you think of them?
JC: I am not a proponent of physics cards. You could do it with a graphics card. There is enough processing power there left over after the graphics tasks are handled. The only thing they are useful for are things that are variable and don?t necessarily affect game play. You get 1,000 butterflies, and that looks nice, but it?s not that interactive.
: Are developers getting better at creating humans in video games?
JC: Facial expressions and lip synching are getting better. I've historically avoided doing humans in the game. We do demons and aliens. People don?t have a frame of reference for those, so it?s harder to tell if they look fake. With humans, everyone notices it. Just one flaw and it is noticeable. You sign yourself up for a lot of work when you choose to do people. It?s a lot of work just to do something that seems simple.
: What do you think of DirectX 10?
JC: DX9 has its act together well. I like the version of DirectX on the 360. Microsoft is doing well with DX10 on tightening the specs and the exactness. The new features are not exactly well-thought-out. Most developers are pretty happy with DX9. The changes with DX10 aren?t as radical. It?s not like getting pixel shaders for the first time. Single-pass shaders are nice with DX10, but it?s a smaller change.
: What else are you doing?
JC: A year and a half ago I started working on a cell phone game and it turned out to be a good project. We have had a good rollout of Orcs And Elves. The sales just keep on growing. It?s not like a game that comes out and then its sales end relatively quickly. This just keeps on going. And it?s nice to take on a project and do it all myself. I wrote the rendering engine and part of the concept demo. My wife?s company handled the bulk of work on it. We hit on a good concept. We can play it one-handed on a cell phone. It?s designed from the ground up for the phone.
: As the new gaming consoles hit the market, what do you think about the health of the PC gaming market?
JC: The PC gaming market has evolved. Everyone does moan and complain about the titles and the decline of the platform; sales at stores were down. But you can see World Of Warcraft as the biggest hit on any platform based on the amount of income they brought in. The consoles are about to be released, but PC gaming will have its own upgrades. I?m not worried about PC games.
: As a small company, how is id Software coping with the rising costs of games and the need to generate more and more art assets that can keep up with the players? expectations for better graphics in every part of the game?
JC: We are a small company. We are struggling with content creation. We have 27 people and it?s not enough to make all the models that we need to generate on a new internal project. We?re experimenting with getting artificial intelligence and art assets from the outside. You can get those things from the companies that specialize in them, and that seems to work reasonably well. But we are concerned about costs and the amount of time it takes to make a game now. There are some really bad trends there. If you build your company up to 80 or 90 people, you need to be working on at least two games to keep everybody busy. That results in a dilution of focus. Activision is seeing this with other studios. You lose some of your focus. If that happens, then you haven?t made the right decision to expand.
JC: I do think we?re already to the point where you can walk by an office and not tell if someone is watching a basketball game on TV or if they?re playing a video game. Graphics is moving along a continuum toward realism and it?s building up a little more at a time. You?ll be photorealistic in more and more cases. It?s still difficult to do it when someone is right up close in a scene. You can still do it more easily with guys walking around in helmets where you don?t see their faces or facial expressions. You can do high-quality outdoor environments now. But rendering a lot of scenes with close-up interaction remains very difficult. The hardest thing is the close-up.
: When do we actually get to photorealism?
JC: Even 20 years from now, there are tasks you can?t do that show that you?re going to fall short of being able to do realism. You need to keep on improving the technology. It?s getting more subtle. There are nuances to things with slightly better lighting, shadowing, and more effects; doing more moving things on the screen at the same time. It?s a lot better than it used to be.
: You mentioned the quality of animations in basketball games. The newest games do a good job of rendering the players (the movement of cloth in their uniforms), and it looks like you're watching TV?for a moment. But when those players start moving, it looks like there is something out of sync.
JC: One of the problems is that physics interaction is still just beginning. You can do kinematics like rag doll physics, where the characters fall down in a realistic fashion. That?s not as hard. But getting actuators in the right place to show human beings in motion as they make their way across the basketball court, that?s hard.
: How do you get that motion right?
JC: You do motion capture and then replicate it.
: What looks fake?
JC: The physics is neat. I?m not a big proponent of sophisticated artificial intelligence. You can see that going all the way back to Doom; the monster in the game was formulating a plan. But the only thing you really need is that the artificial intelligence shouldn?t do something stupid in front of the player. If they can do that, then that is a good step. The things that will wow people now are formal research on things like squad behavior. But we have come a long way from where artificial intelligence characters did stupid things in the games.
: What do you think of the trend toward open worlds in video games in which the environment gives people much more freedom to roam around rather than follow a predefined path? Is this the way to get closer to realism?
JC: It?s always easier to have a tight design. The more you open it up, the more work you have to do in order to fill out the world and make it all seem real. It?s great to see this stuff with a newfound sense of freedom. I?m not 100% convinced it?s the most interesting way to make games. If you look at movies and the emotional aspect to them, it happens because the camera is up close and following the characters closely. When there isn?t any one true path, it becomes incredibly intricate to keep that experience where it?s still very emotional.
: What are you thinking about doing in the next Wolfenstein?
JC: I?m only peripherally doing it. I?m mostly working on an unannounced title. We?re not talking about that yet.
: What do you think about the graphics quality on today?s game consoles?
JC: The PlayStation 3 hype blows these things way out of proportion. You can buy a PC that now is two times as powerful. It will cost you more, but the resolution will be better on the PC. We were able to do Doom 3 on both the PC and the Xbox. The Xbox had about a third of the performance. For the most part, people didn?t really notice much of a difference. But for now, with Quake 4 on the Xbox 360, it looks better than it does on the PC now. At the moment the differences aren?t worth noticing, but in time the PC will be twice as powerful again. And you?ll notice how it?s going to be better than the consoles.
: Physics chips seem to be all the rage these days. What do you think of them?
JC: I am not a proponent of physics cards. You could do it with a graphics card. There is enough processing power there left over after the graphics tasks are handled. The only thing they are useful for are things that are variable and don?t necessarily affect game play. You get 1,000 butterflies, and that looks nice, but it?s not that interactive.
: Are developers getting better at creating humans in video games?
JC: Facial expressions and lip synching are getting better. I've historically avoided doing humans in the game. We do demons and aliens. People don?t have a frame of reference for those, so it?s harder to tell if they look fake. With humans, everyone notices it. Just one flaw and it is noticeable. You sign yourself up for a lot of work when you choose to do people. It?s a lot of work just to do something that seems simple.
: What do you think of DirectX 10?
JC: DX9 has its act together well. I like the version of DirectX on the 360. Microsoft is doing well with DX10 on tightening the specs and the exactness. The new features are not exactly well-thought-out. Most developers are pretty happy with DX9. The changes with DX10 aren?t as radical. It?s not like getting pixel shaders for the first time. Single-pass shaders are nice with DX10, but it?s a smaller change.
: What else are you doing?
JC: A year and a half ago I started working on a cell phone game and it turned out to be a good project. We have had a good rollout of Orcs And Elves. The sales just keep on growing. It?s not like a game that comes out and then its sales end relatively quickly. This just keeps on going. And it?s nice to take on a project and do it all myself. I wrote the rendering engine and part of the concept demo. My wife?s company handled the bulk of work on it. We hit on a good concept. We can play it one-handed on a cell phone. It?s designed from the ground up for the phone.
: As the new gaming consoles hit the market, what do you think about the health of the PC gaming market?
JC: The PC gaming market has evolved. Everyone does moan and complain about the titles and the decline of the platform; sales at stores were down. But you can see World Of Warcraft as the biggest hit on any platform based on the amount of income they brought in. The consoles are about to be released, but PC gaming will have its own upgrades. I?m not worried about PC games.
: As a small company, how is id Software coping with the rising costs of games and the need to generate more and more art assets that can keep up with the players? expectations for better graphics in every part of the game?
JC: We are a small company. We are struggling with content creation. We have 27 people and it?s not enough to make all the models that we need to generate on a new internal project. We?re experimenting with getting artificial intelligence and art assets from the outside. You can get those things from the companies that specialize in them, and that seems to work reasonably well. But we are concerned about costs and the amount of time it takes to make a game now. There are some really bad trends there. If you build your company up to 80 or 90 people, you need to be working on at least two games to keep everybody busy. That results in a dilution of focus. Activision is seeing this with other studios. You lose some of your focus. If that happens, then you haven?t made the right decision to expand.
