A Quote by Hidetaka Miyazaki

If the number of easy games is increasing nowadays, I guess it is because difficulty is not related to interesting and worthwhile game elements in many games among players.
Selling five million units in less than 14 months means DS is the fastest among any game machines ever launched in Japan to hit that level. To achieve this rapid growth, we were required not only to go after frequent game players, but to reel back people who had left games and to make video games enjoyable for those who had not played games at all.
We all bring some different elements at the Games. Everything is a stepping stone for us after playing these two games. These Games are preparing us to play a 60-minutes game and preparing us for the gold-medal game.
All the top players in the world play 45-50-60 games. You need that many games, even the strikers need that many games.
Video games provide an easy lead-in to computer literacy. They can get you thinking like a video game designer and can even lead to designing since many games come with software to modify the game or redesign it.
I am most challenged by playing cash games against the world's top players. These games force me to think several moves in advance, like in a game of chess. And though I also find tournaments fun to play, they just don't provide the constant brain buzz that cash game players crave.
The more I learned about games, the more frustrated I became because the games weren't very good. I could tell a good game from a bad game. My conclusion was: let's make our own games.
All experiments that are related to the games when you have humans versus machines in the games - whether it's chess or "Go" or any other game - machines will prevail not because they can solve the game. Chess is mathematically unsolvable. But at the end of the day, the machine doesn't have to solve the game. The machine has to win the game. And to win the game, it just has to make fewer mistakes than humans. Which is not that difficult since humans are humans and vulnerable, and we don't have the same steady hand as the computer.
It is relatively easy... to determine whether or not a blow to a quarterback was deemed excessive or incidental. So I'm discouraged that there have been a number of games that are influenced - not that the outcomes are in question - but a number of games influenced based on the protection of the quarterback.
In tournaments, players typically raise when they enter the pot. In cash games, though, players are more likely to limp in before the flop. That's because cash games are usually deeper-stacked, meaning that players will have a higher ratio of chips in relation to the blinds than they would in a tournament.
Not only do you have 16 regular-season games, you also have four preseason games. Then if you make the playoffs, you can have four more games before you get to the Super Bowl. So you can already have 24 games without the 18-game season. And 24 games takes a real toll on somebody's body.
If sports science really has a beat on what's healthy for the players, then they need to tell the league how many games that is healthy for players to play and then only play that many games.
The last 10% of game design is really what separates the good games from the great games. It's what I call the clean-up phase of game design. Here's where you make sure all the elements look great. The game should look good, feel good, sound good, play good.
We played in a number of these neutral site games, I would call them, whether it's a playoff game, a bowl game, or one of these kickoff classic type things, which I think is helpful to, you know, our players in terms of playing some place that's not really a home game for them.
Some players thrive in the open-style, AAU games - the all-star games. But when it comes to playing in an actual system and having to 'think' the game, you see where some guys separated themselves.
You get into coaching because you love the game and you love the players. And if you're not careful, you win so many games it becomes about the wins more than anything else.
I do not think novels are necessarily more worthwhile than games. A novel can be a trivial waste of time, and a game can teach. Whatever the genre, I think a successful narrative allows us to participate, to try on new roles and points of view. At their best, novels and games serve as vehicles for discovery.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!