I always felt like you couldn't have PlayStation without Japanese games. It doesn't mean that every game has to be Japanese, but it's not PlayStation without Japanese-developed games. There was something you said at Gamescom: We want to bring you the kind of games and experiences you remember from PlayStation.
MC: Well, one of the themes of PlayStation has been the incredible variety of experiences on the platform. I'm sure there are better examples, but I always think back to PaRappa, Devil Dice, and I.Q. on the original PlayStation.
As for whether having Japanese games adds variety, I agree that part of the diversity comes from people from many different cultures making games for PlayStation. I love that we have our heavy-duty, story-based game coming from Quantic Dream in France, and I love that we have our mascotty game coming out of the Japan Studio.
If you look at the original PlayStation, it's hard to think of a system with a more diverse lineup, right?
MC: A lot of that was that games were so much cheaper to make back then, that you weren't risking very much. For many of those games, the budgets were just a few hundred thousand dollars. Even Crash Bandicoot, which was a very expensive project by the standards of those days, cost less than $2 million to make. Now today, if you think about what you can do for a couple hundred thousand dollars or $2 million, it's not that much.
Over the course of this project, did you feel that the developers there were able to adapt and understand the value of working in that way?
MC: I think, structurally speaking, it went very well. The project is the largest that the studio has created for a home console since, I believe, [2005's] Shadow of the Colossus, and it shipped on time. I think, as we go forward, the question becomes: How can we tap better into the creativity of the Japan Studio?
There's no doubt that Japanese game developers are very creative. What has been, I think, difficult has been keeping pace with technology and production, and also market taste, maybe.
MC: I agree completely. With Knack, because we decided to make "Crash Bandicoot for the 21st century," we were able to have a highly structured project. I now wonder what these same individuals can do with this new better set of production methodologies.
This is the first game you've directed, or have had main creative control over, in a long time.
MC: It is the first game that I've directed.
MC: Well, yes. We didn't have directors back in the day, because if you have a three-person project you don't worry about calling somebody a "director." And as team sizes got larger, I tended to be in a very secondary role supporting creative directors such as Ted Price or Jason Rubin. I was happy to do it, because they are brilliant.
But were you happy, also, to take the reins?
MC: I took the reins on Knack not because I had a burning desire to be director but that I had come to the limits of how I could work as a consultant in video games. The team sizes grew dramatically over the years…
Crash Bandicoot was created by a seven-person team, Crash Bandicoot 2 was closer to 20 people, and by the time when I was working on Killzone or Uncharted the teams were well over 100 people in size, and I was still this part-time consultant. What can I even do with that time slice?
So with Knack I had the idea that if it was a smaller title -- "Crash Bandicoot for the 21st century," for example -- and if I restricted my role to, say, being a producer, that I could still do something with that smaller time slice and add a lot of value to the game.
Now what happened is [laughs] I ended up being director rather than producer, and the game stopped being a very small title, both of which dramatically increased the amount of time I need to spend on the game.