Jason Rubin is, without a doubt, one of the most outspoken and prolific creators in the video game industry. Even if you don't know his name, odds are good that you know his work. It was roughly twenty-five years ago that Rubin teamed up with programmer Andrew Gavin and formed Naughty Dog, the development studio responsible for the hit Crash Bandicoot and Jak and Daxter video game franchises. Leaving Naughty Dog and taking a hiatus away from the spotlight, Jason making waves again, returning to the industry that first spawned his success. Once again, he's teaming up with his old partner-in-crime, forming a new social gaming startup, Monkey Gods. We had a chance to sit down with Jason for a bit and pick his brain on everything from what makes casual games so appealing, how to build a memorable experience, and just what improvements the game industry could make to continue to thrive in the future.

The Clik: During your tenure over at Naughty Dog, you had a hand in creating some iconic video game franchises. Crash Bandicoot. Jak and Daxter. So what's the secret to making a game truly memorable?

Jason Rubin: That's a really interesting question that I have never been asked before. I can try to answer the question "what makes a good game." That involves a lot of moving parts, but I believe a game that is interesting visually and thematically that challenges a person right to the edge of frustration, but not over it, tends to become addictive. We seem to have an innate need to challenge ourselves as humans. Why else would we feel satisfaction in something so virtual as a score, or a level completed. Lately, big games have also added big moments (cut scenes, plot reveals, etc.) and earned rewards (power-ups, enhancements, medals, etc.) to make you really appreciate what you have achieved. Tetris, without much complexity, and with no real rewards except perhaps the score, still manages to be one of the best games ever created. I suggest this is because it manages perfectly to be challenging to the point of being almost, but not quite, frustrating no matter what your skill level.

But what makes a game memorable? This is a more difficult question to answer. I have enjoyed many games in my life, but remember a select few. I am not even convinced that I remember the ones I enjoyed most. Why, off the top of my head, do I remember Dino Eggs, Ultima 2, Doom, Tomb Raider, Grand Theft Auto over all others? Why those games specifically?

I would offer the suggestion that these games were linked to a change in time or situation that made them representative of a stage of my gaming life or my understanding of it. Ultima II was the first game I got truly addicted to, to the point where I wouldn't eat. Doom made me first realize that games could touch our emotions, in this case fear as I fell back in my seat when a cacodemon jumped out after a straight 16-hour play session. Perhaps Grand Theft Auto was the moment that a game became more than a setup, and rather mirrored the freedom of life. But this list is how these games affected me, not how another gamer would have seen them.

So what makes games memorable across a population, rather than a person? I would again suggest that it has to do with groups of people being touched by the same experience at the same time. I would imagine that the Crash games were more successful at this than the Jak games. Perhaps it was the fact that Crash was the first character action hero that turned around and looked at you with a personality. Unlike Mario who was just Mario, or Sonic whose personality was that he was fast, we tried to give Crash the whole range of emotions from happy to sad, and confused to mischievous. Many people have told me over the years that they loved Crash, not as a game but as a character. Perhaps Crash was one of the first games that made such a connection possible to a large number of people, the unique time and place when technology and game design made emotion in a character action game possible.

The Clik: After leaving Naughty Dog, you dropped off the gaming radar for a bit. What's been keeping you busy?

JR: I have been off the game radar, but still involved in the business behind the scenes. In the last few years I started an internet mashup site called Flektor which was purchased and integrated into MySpace. I wrote two comic series, "The Iron Saint" and "Mysterious Ways". I also dabbled in casual games, adapting Snood for the iPhone and Facebook and creating MonkWerks for Facebook. Though I haven't been making big games, I have kept in touch with developers and publishers. Being free from the daily grind of actually making a game has given the ability and time to roam free and talk to people in all corners of the industry. I have a lot more perspective than I did when I was working at Naughty Dog, and maybe someday I will translate that back into game production.

The Clik: Last year, you teamed up with your former Naughty Dog cohort, Andy Gavin, to form a new game studio, Monkey Gods. What drew you back into game development?

JR: I was excited by the combination of reaching a lot of people while spending less money on production that Facebook and the iPhone afforded. I have always made games, written comics, or made fun online utilities because I like to entertain people, and Monkey God's games gave me the chance to do that again. Our two titles have been played by more than 500,000 people and counting, so while they were no Crash Bandicoot, we still got the chance to make a lot of people happy.

The Clik: What made you decide to jump from traditional console development to the more casual social media market?

JR: When I was working on games I was so busy that I never had a chance to do anything else. One of the first things I did when I left Naughty Dog was to look at what the rest of the world was doing. At that point in time it was MySpace. I started "pimping" my page, and then friends asked me to do theirs for them. Quickly I realized that there was a business there. We wanted to make video, photo, and audio editing more easy for users, and help them make their pages into multi-media shows. Flektor was like Final Cut online, for free. We did everything from store, to edit, to host movies, slideshows, polls, and dozens of other widgets. When MySpace saw it they snapped us up.

The Clik: What have you found to be the biggest differences in working on big, franchise titles and the more bite-sized casual games?

JR: Back when I started making games in 1985 we dreamed about graphics and gameplay as complex and beautiful as some of the simplest iPhone games today. Even the first PlayStation wasn't that much different in overall power than the iPhone. Many game budgets and team sizes for these two systems are nearly identical. There are differences to be sure, but yesterday's big franchise titles now fit in your pocket.

There are more similarities between making small games and big games than there are differences. To be sure, the scale of the challenge, team size, and risk is much larger with big console and PC games. But small games are often self funded with small teams that are under their own pressures. While big games are constantly pushing the boundaries of technology, smaller games are often banging their heads up against the problem of trying to wow players who are used to those big titles while constrained by their less enabled environment.

I have made both, and at the end of the day making the biggest games in the business is admittedly a much more complex endeavor. Every challenge gets multiplied, and often by many orders of magnitude. But it is easy to overlook the challenge of making smaller games.

The Clik: You've already had success with both the Snood and MonkWerks games on Facebook. What's next from Monkey Gods?

JR: Although I think the iPhone and Facebook are great platforms with good business models, we decided to take a break from those platforms. Our experiment in the business was a success, but we don't feel that either platform is where our skills are best suited.

The Clik: Right before you left Naughty Dog, you gave a passionate speech at DICE about publishers not respecting the talent of the developers behind the games. It's been six years since that speech. Do you think things are any better in the industry these days?

JR: I do believe that the respect level for developers has improved. At the time I gave the speech, the industry was debating whether it was a "boxed goods" business, like Proctor and Gamble, or an "entertainment business" more like Hollywood. These were the words of the management of the publishers as they debated it publicly, not mine. At the time, some of the largest publishers were leaning towards boxed goods, and the belief that marketing or shelf space could overcome the weaknesses of a title, and it was therefore less relevant who had made it.

Since then, less and less titles have grabbed a greater share of the marketplace. Titles have become more complex, and there are fewer developers who can perform at the top. In general, the same talent continues to make the biggest hits, which answers the question of whether they are lucky or talented. Some of the most egregious abuses of developers, such as publishers restricting them from industry functions, or allowing them to be referenced only by title, and not by name have disappeared to my knowledge.

On the other hand, the increased risk inherent in big titles, along with the reduction of titles being made has led to the teams being more involved in the financial and marketing discussions within the publishers. More than ever, they understand the constraints and challenges that the publishers face. I think that has led to the developer better understanding and respecting publishers.

In short, I think the industry has grown up and we all appreciate each other better now.

The Clik: You've never been one to be shy about expressing your views on the industry. What are some changes you think need to be made for the video game market to thrive?

JR: Before answering that, I have to make note of the fact that you asked the question how do we help the business "thrive" rather than "survive." Though I think the industry could improve, I also believe that it is healthy overall and in no way in danger. Certain parts of the business, such as the newer casual and social businesses are thriving, and gamers across all platforms are getting better games than ever before.

But I do believe that there are areas we can improve. The console and PC business is not as healthy as it could be. Inefficiencies in distribution tied to the box release are hampering that part of the business. If publishers and developers could recapture the 20 percent stores' take, plus a substantial part of revenue lost to piracy, rental, and resale, not to mention the cost of shipping pieces of plastic all over the world, then I think that part of the industry would be in a better position financially, without a single extra dollar of cost to gamers. Digital distribution can help with all of those inefficiencies, at the same time as it improves the gamer's experience. I certainly would like to avoid chasing down the guy with the key to the glass closet that holds the games just to find the one I wanted was out of stock.

I think the future will see the consoles and high end PC games take some of the advances that the casual and social gaming space has made and incorporate them. And I think that is a bright future.