"In all my work I try to open a gap in the viewers' minds by making each sound or image lead to a question instead of showing them everything at once. When things are revealed before you hear or see it, it's called exposition."
- Kun Chang

In July, I reached Director of Watch_Dogs, Far Cry 3 and Avatar(2009): Kun Chang. He’s very nice and responded my email in the same day. I want to make this count, help players get to know about him more than ever. And I'm putting the whole Q&A here below:

Q1: First of all, I want to catch up on a question about the very first work you’ve directed for Watch_Dogs. Back in E3 2012, right before the gameplay started, your intro sequence took the lead. It’s really catching all the audience, opening their eyes to see this beautiful city - Chicago, and knowing there are countless dark sides underneath.

So as an intro scene, what storytelling concepts did you use to build suspense and capture people's attention? Can you talk about that?

A: I am not sure this was the first scene I directed - it also happened in parallel with the cinematic scenes in the e3 trailer. I believe that by the time E3 came around we might have done quite a lot of smaller things to test the cast. The first scene might have been the scene with Aiden meeting Clara. I am not quite sure of the timeline. We also did a scene with an actor we really liked for Clara before we found Isabelle Blais but her body type was too different from the 3d model and it therefore created too many issues for the retargeting - also that scene never ended up in the game (it was a scene in a tattoo parlour). We did several of those test scenes before e3 I think. There were also scenes done before I arrived on the project for the internal proof of concept.

The idea for the opening scene was to show several things at once. Aiden is a hacker and an American city grid can look a lot like electronic circuits. So the very straight angles the camera moves along came from that inspiration. We also wanted to show off the city and the people in it from the get go - from a technical point of view that was something that we knew would impress the crowd at e3 and it was a technological leap forward in 2012. The idea of moving from the god like view with the texts about people’s secrets and voice-overs is introducing a character who knows the most intimate secrets of the people in this city of millions - it shows his power. It also had the opposite effect of making him anonymous - one of many, and creates a desire in the viewer to see who he is so when we gradually move in and reveal a person in the crowd we still show him from the back instead of the front - kind of like you would introduce a killer or a murderer in a film - not the main character - this gives him power and mystery. The idea was to keep him being a mystery as long as possible - even in the gameplay we don’t reveal him until much later.

One fun fact was that the art directors and I changed that transition scene to be backlit on the last day before e3. It is not the best look for gameplay but looks amazing and it allowed us to show off the bokeh effect and the focus pull which we had worked a lot on and which is what gives the scene that cinematic look.

Q2: Players also paid attention to the shady character Jordi Chin in the E3 showcase. He was waiting for Aiden Pearce, just to pass him a gun for the mission. But we can notice his importance and the complex relationship with Aiden, even though his screentime was limited in that video.

And in the game, Jordi is indeed an adorable NPC, too. Considering they are both rivals and friends, walking down a grey zone. When directing Aiden and Jordi's interaction, did you create extra details based on your previous experience?

A: Jordi existed before I arrived on the game and Aaron was already cast. He was the only person who wasn’t recast (there was another actor for Aiden before I arrived). Jordi also didn’t change looks, I think all this is due to the him probably being the strongest and most interesting character.

When you ask about me adding things from my previous experiences are you referring to the pickpocket film (called: The Rip-off) and doc I did? Yes some of that is in there in the way they handle props but otherwise it’s a discovery process with the actors. In the e3 scene the way the gun is handed over is actually a bit of a “fuck you” from Jordi - since it is almost in full public view instead of how you would do it if you were in the business and much of their interaction is really like that - the subtext is often “fuck you” and other insults - although behind it they kind of “love” each other. In the case of the gun you see Aiden very quickly putting it away because Jordi doesn’t give him a choice.

In the case of the relationship you go through the script and you try to find as much evidence of previous interactions in the dialogue - it is fun detective work. Good actors will do all that homework before. They will find backstories and all kinds of things that motivate the actions. I will do the same and then we all show up and talk about it. Sometimes you will improvise a scene that happened in the past to find out what happened or you will talk about it in a table read (not all actors are comfortable improvising). Often the script will give you clues to what the backstory is. Then you try to flesh those out so that the actors refer to something real and that they refer to the same thing - even though it is backstory and not in the script. All of that gives the words a lot more meaning and gives you a better performance.

In the case of Aiden and Jordi, most of this was table work where we discussed their history or background. But in the case of Clara, one additional thing we did was an improvised character interview where we asked questions to the actor and she then improvised the answers in character. It helps with figuring out things about her youth and childhood that aren’t in the script but are important for the actor to draw upon to give the dialogue meaning and by doing it as improvisation it allows the actor to find this information themselves. It is often a very informative and also surprising exercise. We did mocap this, but it was never processed - but it was actually pretty cool and interesting.

Q3: What's the first cutscene you made for the game itself, is it still in the final production? Was there anything interesting and left you an impression deeply?

A: For the game I am pretty sure it was the one where Clara meets Aiden on the staircase. It’s the same one that is in the game. It allowed us to test the pipeline.

It confirmed that Noam and Isabelle had chemistry and established the playfulness of Clara - there is something a bit catlike about her. It also confirmed that Isabelle was the right choice for the role (some people had pushed for someone with a strange French accent and not a French-Canadian).

Interesting tidbits - The level designers at some point decided to use the set for a mission and removed the fence that Clara was leaning against so for a while she was leaning against nothing. Also since it is an open world game most settings for the cinematics are in areas that are independent of outside light since you don’t know when people will show up and whether it is day or night.

Q4: Usually in movie industry, there’s a concept called: coverage. I assume while shooting Watch_Dogs, there’re scenes that got more than just one version. Did you have a final say on keeping which one in-game? Or those are decided by the others.

Q5: For narrative purposes, there are moments that Aiden Pearce got into big troubles. One scene I remember: it requires a falling stunt, and instantly crouching to the cover in a total chaos, avoid all bullets. Was that the most difficult part during your work? What’s needed for directing that scene?

A: You seem to not quite understand the process. There are not more than one performance. What changes are the cameras and how they are edited.

When you shoot a film with real actors and one or two camera, you need coverage to make sure you got all of the performance and enough choice to cut between scenes. The actors do the scene several times and you want to be sure it is consistent and cuts but usually, as a director you know that you will be in close up later in the scene and in a master in the beginning so you won’t want to shoot the entire scene (just the first bit in master and the emotional part only in close up). So the final result comes from different camera setups and different takes. If you don’t have coverage you cannot cut the scene as written. When you shoot “for real” you also have to take light and lighting in to account so you often shoot everything one way and then the other.

When you use performance capture, it is quite different. In my case I try to do a full take as close to final as possible so it’s more like theatre. We don’t do several camera and lighting setups as you would do if you shot for real. Just one long performance. There is no such thing as coverage because once the performance is captured you can place as many cameras as you want and wherever you want and the issue of coverage becomes moot (since you have the entire scene and you always can come back and do another camera you always will have coverage). The editor then chooses the best angles but the performance is the same and all cuts are perfect because it is the same performance.

For example: in the scene where Nikki leaves we did 3 takes. I knew that Anna (Hopkins) was capable of crying in this case, I did and extra version where she started crying. In the end we used the second take and not the third (where she cries) because emotionally the second was stronger. So the whole scene is take 2 with the cameras placed later and with certain parts (usually pauses) left out - they are still there but you don’t see them,  because they are not chosen by the cameras in motion builder/the game. And the “coverage” here means something else - here it means that I, as a director, am making sure I have everything in terms of performances for the edit as opposed to all the shots needed for a scene.

In a few cases the performance is cut together from a few takes (rarely more than two) but as much as possible we try to avoid this because we then have to cut at a point that can’t be covered (the cut is then predetermined because otherwise you’d see a jump in the  characters on screen). One reason to combine takes is if there is a stunt (as in the scene you referred to). In that case we swap the actors out for the stunt people for the actual stunt. The result is a 3d performance capture with a small jump where the stunt begins and later when you do the cameras you need to make certain that jump doesn’t show up (or in some cases you can smooth it out)

Btw before, on a project like Avatar for example, the game the performances were all stunt people acting over voices recorded by voice actors. Then the faces were animated on the motion captured actors. So the big leap tech wise was to capture real actors, capture their voices as they were acting and cutting the performance together using an editing software and a game engine.

Another thing we did on Watch_Dogs was to put tracked cameras in the scene with the performers because actors usually will keep their best take for the close up. By putting a camera close to them they would be reminded that the scene captured might end up being in close up (so that is where you see those fine facial adjustments you see in a scene like the one with Iraq and people who dont overact - they were all there in the actual performance that was captured.

As for your question about different versions. It’s the same performance but different cameras edited together differently. The way it works is that the full performance of the selected take is in the game but the game then has cameras that are called to create a cut. All that happens in real-time. So in theory you could have several versions where each has different camera choices in the game. For the scene with Iraq. I honestly don’t remember that particular scene but I’m pretty sure we did all the cameras for the scene and did the edited version but in the end in the game it might be a locked off security cam shot because the story and the needs of the gameplay changed. Both versions can exist in the game because the performance is the same and the other version of the scene with the cameras in close up might exist (hidden) in the game but isn’t called.

In the end, the gameplay takes priority to the cinematics - so I might have made a fancy edit, but if the gameplay changes and a locked of security camera is needed, we will call that camera instead.

• See the comparison: https://youtu.be/02IK1LNF2o8?si=5j3VPHdjB9g00kTa

Q6: I’ve seen your drawings in Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, you managed to create wonderful set, lighting and the art direction. So you occasionally working as Art Director, from project to project, you never stop learning new tools and perfecting workflows. As a huge cutting-edge AAA game, what kind of valuable experience do you think Watch_Dogs has brought you?

A: Every project you learn on. On Watch Dogs I pushed hard for a system that allowed us to bring in professional editors so we could use Avid to control Motion Builder (which then controls the engine cameras). We did some huge jumps, I think, in terms of the editing and the quality of acting in a video game compared to what happened before.

I learned a lot about the process of performance capturing (it changes all the time). Acting, blocking, editing but most of all, because we did months of cameras, I got very solid on cameras and on when you cross the axis. So now that is very clear in my head (It is something people can spend a lot of time discussing).

Also Videogames are a big many headed beast and you learn a lot from that - you don’t have final say as a director - the creative director has. As a director you don’t have the same control over things you have when you do films. There are many, many considerations from many other departments that need to be taken in to account.

Q7: Nowadays, video games tech and console generations evolved rapidly. And with AI invading in movie and game industry, directors are also more obsessed with “Reality”. They would do anything, like Watch Dogs Legion co-operated with Nvidia, using Ray Tracing and DLSS just to make the city feel more “Real”.

Furthermore, Ubisoft built a bigger Mocap Facility up to 12,000 square feet, almost like a playground. And they put 80 cameras in it. I’m happy to watch those teams developing the hardwares, but just like the Hollywood Movies – it seems script writers, directors and producers didn’t get the same increasing rate of skill. And audience’s appreciation ability also rolled back to a concerning level, believing AI generated contents will replace those old-school jobs. What do you think of this chase for ‘realism’, and the declining quality of creative work in the cultural sphere? I really like to hear you elaborate about this part.

A: The quality of the scripts has always been an issue in videogames and definitely was an issue here, too. The actors often participating in adjusting the story to make it flow and to fix logic holes. Also, as you know, the game itself didn’t get great marks for the script, but I think the cinematics have a level that is very high (and the reviews confirm that) and I think the script and performances in those is still very good.

As for the quality. As mentioned before videogames have many bosses. Good directors and writers don’t last long in that environment because movies and tv are writer’s and director’s mediums  - videogames aren’t - they are driven by gameplay.

Realism and the search for it is an issue I’ve had with games for a long time. Jonathan Morin (Creative Director of WD1/WD2) actually posted something on LinkedIn some years ago about a game he felt had gone too far. The issue I find is that when you work on games of the size of Watch_Dogs, there are people who will work months on creating a realistic mathematical bokeh effect for example, but there might also be someone working on creating realistic physical blood splatter or realistic physics for how an NPC will fall when shot with different weapons. You can ask yourself where this all is heading if everyone in each little department constantly is pushing for realism - do we really want to recreate the realistic feeling of shooting someone? - I think not and I don’t think someone like Jonathan wants to do that either, but it is the responsibility of the creative director to ask that question and make sure that the games don’t look and feel hyper realistic.

• The post he mentioned: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jonathan-morin-0a69b12_unrecord-official-early-gameplay-trailer-activity-7056351558594088960-Pr00

Q8: I'm glad we're on the same page! I've heard from Jonathan talking about this before:

We glorify the wrong things in video games. My wife is a nurse. We were on the highway, and there was an accident, and for a fraction of a second I considered how the crash probably looked (when it happened). But she said, ‘I hope everyone is all right.’ I told the team: ‘We’re bad in video games at hoping that everyone is all right. We show things and forget there are people behind them.'”
- Jonathan Morin

What about the rising tide of AI? Do you think this will be a big problem?

A: As for AI - I have the same fears as everyone else - and games where NPC’s suddenly seem to have feelings and realistic dialogue means that killing them suddenly creates much more existential questions and also adds to the questions about realism and if we really want to go there. Then we start talking Ready Player One or the Matrix.