|
Post by theduke21 on Jan 17, 2020 18:17:18 GMT -5
So everyone who has played my courses dating back to TGC1 knows that I'm more of a minimalist designer. Part of that is just annoyance with console designing and part of it is just my preference on golf courses. I like grass, water and trees. I'm in Atlanta and the most famous courses around me are mostly in this style along with some pretty flowers here and there.
It seems like whenever I watch people play courses though including some who have played mine, people here more and more are expecting every course they play to be planted up to the max on the plant meter. And I'm really, really struggling to understand this. Now, could I possibly do a little more on some of my courses with bushes here and there? Sure. But I'm always much, much more worried about the course strategy and how every hole plays, which is the point of a golf course isn't it? Seems like multiple people have had an expectation that water is supposed to be planted all around it. Why is that? Augusta, East Lake, Peachtree Golf Club are just 3 famous courses around me that has water go straight into grass. It's a look that is on purpose and it looks clean to many people.
This post isn't a knock on anyone at all (!!!). There are many designers on here that plant a ton and I love it and think it looks amazing. And a ton of planting on certain styles of courses make sense, and many of you do it really well that fits with the setting and still plays well. But there's also courses I've played that not only run like crap on console because of too much planting, but also the planting just feels forced and overdone. It also can feel like planting was the focus of the design and not the actual golf. Most golf courses don't have bushes and rocks and grasses every square foot just dominating the golf course. In fact most famous courses are like I said, grass, water and trees (sometimes not even trees).
Rocks seem to be the popular item right now. I've played quite a few recently where there are just rocks absolutely everywhere. I've played quite a bit around the U.S. and outside of very mountainous tracks where rocks might be a part of the setting or right on a rocky coast, I just don't see rocks on golf courses in many spots. They're used as de facto retaining walls at a few places I've played but that's it.
So again, I'm not knocking people big on planting. Some of my favorite designers plant a ton and do it well. But I'm asking people to stop expecting a ridiculous amount of planting on every course. It's pretty frustrating to watch someone play my course and say it's bland because there aren't plants everywhere. That's how I make my courses because I like well manicured golf courses. I do want to work on some small planting more on my next course just to work on it and add a little flavor. But go play Oakmont or Merion or Augusta or Chicago Golf Club. Some of the most famous courses in the country. Augusta has trees and some bushes with flowers on a few holes. Merion has trees and long rough. Chicago and Oakmont have nothing but long rough.
TL;DR: Let's relax on the expectation that all golf courses are supposed to be meticulously planted. It's not a realistic expectation in the real world of golf and it shouldn't be on this game. There's room for planters and non-planters. And a non-planters minimalist, manicured course can be just as good as a planted one if the golf is fun and challenging.
|
|
|
Post by theduke21 on Jan 17, 2020 18:19:06 GMT -5
Side note, I think we can all agree the designer needs long rough/grass as a setting. I'm just not willing to spam grasses as long rough everywhere to drop frame rate on the course for something that doesn't even render unless you're zoomed in on it.
Having long rough as setting would help my courses and most courses look a lot better with minimalist design and planting. Seems like such an easy and obvious option to the designer.
|
|
|
Post by tpetro on Jan 17, 2020 18:39:59 GMT -5
Agree with your side note of a fescue setting. Strategy is paramount. Definitely don't let anyone tell you otherwise. That said, as b101 says, our course designer mode is (sadly) more level design than golf course architecture. Aesthetics are obviously crucial, but that doesn't mean they should dictate how you build your course. Also, note the key difference between the game and real life design: aesthetics are somewhat provided when you design a real course on a real plot of land. Here, you are forced to create a golf environment.
|
|
|
Post by Crazycanuck1985 on Jan 17, 2020 19:21:12 GMT -5
Well, here's some insight from one of those guys that plants a lot. This is just my opinion here.
As Thomas said above, you are forced to create a golf environment, something that immerses you in the experience. Alot of us play video games for this immersion factor. However, creating an environment doesn't just need to be planting. I've seen many excellent courses with minimalist planting, but excellent sculpting and hole design.
However, more often than not, as I have thousands of courses to choose from I'm going to tend to lean towards one with a more immersive environment. There are many golf nerds here, but I would say the majority of the people that play (and design) wouldn't pick up on the subtle qualities of what define and excellent hole (myself included). And those people will probably lean towards the "prettier" course. If you put two holes side by side, one being the most perfectly designed golf hole imaginable with no immersive qualities and other with excellent immersion qualities and potentially not as good design (but certainly playable), I'm picking the latter 99 times out of 100 to spent 20-30 minutes of my dwindling gaming time playing.
This immersion factor also makes courses memorable. I will most likely forget about a minimalist-style course, but those courses with that "it factor" (may it be planting, sculpting, a unique design feature, anything that creates that immersion) are the courses I'm going to remember and most likely play again.
I know next to nothing about proper course design and golf architecture. All I had when I started was my knowledge of the game of golf I've been playing in a mediocre fashion since I was 6, and whatever my brain could dream up. I'm surprised I get the recognition and plays that I do, as I do not consider myself to be an great course "designer" at all, and this is something I am trying to learn and get better at. But I do seem to be decent at creating some sort of immersion factor that seems to get people playing my courses, proving my point that the majority of us probably aren't as well-versed in the world of course architecture as some in this community, and will divert their attention to the "pretty" course".
Strategy and hole design are by far the most important in creating a great course, but if you choose to ignore having to create the environment (or level), don't expect to get a significant amount of plays (if that's what you are going for). There are a few exceptions of courses I loved that barely had a blade of grass on them, but I can count them on one hand.
Many designers in this game also forget that....this is a game. Real life course architecture features that may look and play outstanding in real-life, sometimes just don't translate well to a video game. That disappoints some, but that's just the way it is.
Anyway, just my two-cents. Planting and aesthetics are a huge pain in the butt for most, but if you can nail a certain look to encompass your excellent hole design, you have an instant classic.
|
|
|
Post by theduke21 on Jan 17, 2020 20:00:26 GMT -5
Well, here's some insight from one of those guys that plants a lot. This is just my opinion here. As Thomas said above, you are forced to create a golf environment, something that immerses you in the experience. Alot of us play video games for this immersion factor. However, creating an environment doesn't just need to be planting. I've seen many excellent courses with minimalist planting, but excellent sculpting and hole design. However, more often than not, as I have thousands of courses to choose from I'm going to tend to lean towards one with a more immersive environment. There are many golf nerds here, but I would say the majority of the people that play (and design) wouldn't pick up on the subtle qualities of what define and excellent hole (myself included). And those people will probably lean towards the "prettier" course. If you put two holes side by side, one being the most perfectly designed golf hole imaginable with no immersive qualities and other with excellent immersion qualities and potentially not as good design (but certainly playable), I'm picking the latter 99 times out of 100 to spent 20-30 minutes of my dwindling gaming time playing. This immersion factor also makes courses memorable. I will most likely forget about a minimalist-style course, but those courses with that "it factor" (may it be planting, sculpting, a unique design feature, anything that creates that immersion) are the courses I'm going to remember and most likely play again. I know next to nothing about proper course design and golf architecture. All I had when I started was my knowledge of the game of golf I've been playing in a mediocre fashion since I was 6, and whatever my brain could dream up. I'm surprised I get the recognition and plays that I do, as I do not consider myself to be an great course "designer" at all, and this is something I am trying to learn and get better at. But I do seem to be decent at creating some sort of immersion factor that seems to get people playing my courses, proving my point that the majority of us probably aren't as well-versed in the world of course architecture as some in this community, and will divert their attention to the "pretty" course". Strategy and hole design are by far the most important in creating a great course, but if you choose to ignore having to create the environment (or level), don't expect to get a significant amount of plays (if that's what you are going for). There are a few exceptions of courses I loved that barely had a blade of grass on them, but I can count them on one hand. Many designers in this game also forget that....this is a game. Real life course architecture features that may look and play outstanding in real-life, sometimes just don't translate well to a video game. That disappoints some, but that's just the way it is. Anyway, just my two-cents. Planting and aesthetics are a huge pain in the butt for most, but if you can nail a certain look to encompass your excellent hole design, you have an instant classic. And I'll say right away that you've always been more than fair when playing my TGC1 courses. Not sure if you played my two newest ones since I returned, but when you played the older ones on stream or YouTube, you made mention of my very low-key planting but typically always said you enjoyed playing the course due to some strategic and challenging golf along with nice sculpting and a clean look. And that's more than fair and all I can ask for honestly. And I thought of you when making the post because although you're definitely someone who enjoys planting and does it well, you still respected my courses and enjoyed them for the most part. I also agree with leveling and sculpting completely. Chicago Golf Club is a course that just doesn't look good on the game because it's too flat and the leveling doesn't translate to the game. So I do spend tons of time on most of my courses sculpting the absolute hell out of it and trying to give each hole a different look from the tee box and fairway that is in some way interesting or memorable.
|
|
|
Post by lessthanbread on Jan 18, 2020 1:58:03 GMT -5
Great discussion to have. It definitely comes down to the audience your designing for. Everyone here loves golf but few are complete golf purists that only pay attention to the architecture and science side of designing. Most have a little bit to moderate knowledge on golf architecture but value the art side of the designer just as much or more. Combining good strategic design with an immersive environment is your ticket here. Because we design in the virtual world, it is difficult to create that immersive environment on a TV screen without bushes, rocks, water features and other eye candy.
Also with the amount of high quality designers active today, the courses that stand out are the ones that have the best of both worlds. Many designers are able to make a fantastically designed course and also build a beautiful world around it
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Jan 18, 2020 4:06:13 GMT -5
Whilst I'm all about strategy and playability first, I totally agree with Andre. Even when minimalist (which I'm trying my hand at now), planting and framing matters hugely. See anything done by CSU - Susquehannock or Conservatory Club come to mind. As it's easiest to cite your own work though, for example, the holes below aren't by any means heavily planted, but in my opinion still look good, thanks to a lot of time working on framing, sculpting and where I'm planting. I'm nearly through 18 with the plant meter sitting at about 20%. --- Now with all that said and done, I do think a lot of us overplant and find it easier to add things rather than take them away - partly why I'm making myself try this type of course. But you can't just chuck no planting down at all and expect people to find it looks good. Reality is, you never see courses where trees having nothing by the base, there is no grass or bushes etc. and we have to put in the work to make the course look realistic. Plus, it's often the most fun part.
|
|
|
Post by theduke21 on Jan 18, 2020 5:56:30 GMT -5
Whilst I'm all about strategy and playability first, I totally agree with Andre. Even when minimalist (which I'm trying my hand at now), planting and framing matters hugely. See anything done by CSU - Susquehannock or Conservatory Club come to mind. As it's easiest to cite your own work though, for example, the holes below aren't by any means heavily planted, but in my opinion still look good, thanks to a lot of time working on framing, sculpting and where I'm planting. I'm nearly through 18 with the plant meter sitting at about 20%. --- Now with all that said and done, I do think a lot of us overplant and find it easier to add things rather than take them away - partly why I'm making myself try this type of course. But you can't just chuck no planting down at all and expect people to find it looks good. Reality is, you never see courses where trees having nothing by the base, there is no grass or bushes etc. and we to put in the work to make the course look realistic. Plus, it's often the most fun part. Glad you brought up CSU because he's probably my favorite designer overall from the start of TGC and the Conservatory Club is my favorite course. Absolutely love the pictures you posted and look forward to playing that. I prefer the look you have there over any of the heavily planted stuff. 1. It has me focusing on the sculpting of the course itself and the design itself and 2. I feel like I'm playing a real golf course, which says a lot for me personally. I agree with all of your points really. The best of both worlds is great. I do tend to think a lot of the designs I've played lately are leaning much more heavily toward the too much planting side. I've played a few WCoD courses that looked spectacular. Truly. But I didn't remember a singular golf hole when I was done playing. I think I've gotten pretty good at sculpting and leveling for my holes to create interesting looks, and I think my strong point dating back to TGC1 is creating a challenging and strategic golf course that requires people to take more than 5 seconds to hit a shot. But looking back at my last two courses, I do think I rushed them out a bit and could have at least added some bushes/ground planting to go along with the pine tree/pinestraw focused planting. Because even courses like Augusta and East Lake do have that ground planting like you mentioned. I think it would've taken Oconee toward the top notch level of overall look and would've gotten Dunwoody toward at least a little better level. I'm not overly happy with how Dunwoody looked on the back 9 because I think I overplanted trees and it looks a bit strange from distance. But I was honestly so caught up in the course that I rushed it out without giving that another look.
|
|
|
Post by sandsaver01 on Jan 18, 2020 8:31:29 GMT -5
I think this is an interesting discussion. I do not have a dog in this fight (I know it is not really a fight!) but I thought I would post from the POV of a designer who is mediocre at building courses from scratch. For that reason I have switched to Lidar versions of RCRs. On these for me the important thing is to make the TGC2019 version as close to the IRL course as I can with the mediocre tools available in the designer. If that makes them "not immersive" so be it. I certainly enjoy playing both types of courses and those done by the folks who have posted are excellent examples.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2020 11:40:08 GMT -5
Planting is all about the look one is going for and figuring out what best serves that objective. I'm finding with my course that it's pretty hard to get an overgrown look in spots without distracting from the course itself.
In the end it's all about what frames a hole, and generally speaking said golf hole should look pretty good when it is not yet planted, even if one has selected a pretty intensive planting scheme. It's better to let the terrain do the talking than it is the other way around. And that's just visually, the important things for the player to focus on would be...flat spots in the fairway, the best angle into a specific hole location, if the designer has allowed for several viable but not clearly superior options where you can pick and create your own shot, those kinds of things.
It's really important a course 'look' at least decent in a video game and push come to shove I'd probably pick a mediocre but visually stunning course over an incredibly strategic but very ordinary looking one, although if the strategic course has excellent 'golf visuals' that more than makes up for it in my book. Setting up a hole that creates interesting looking golf shots imho is what the game is all about. Just like an IRL course: ideally a great golf course would have you looking forward to your next shot (as long as you can find your ball), right?
There are a bunch of courses in this game that really nail both the overall look and the 'golf visuals,' and for anyone who has played Necedah Pines (or 'great course X') without paying attention to the 'golf visuals' presented throughout I highly recommend you give it another go and look more closely at that.
|
|
|
Post by theduke21 on Jan 18, 2020 17:44:23 GMT -5
Planting is all about the look one is going for and figuring out what best serves that objective. I'm finding with my course that it's pretty hard to get an overgrown look in spots without distracting from the course itself. In the end it's all about what frames a hole, and generally speaking said golf hole should look pretty good when it is not yet planted, even if one has selected a pretty intensive planting scheme. It's better to let the terrain do the talking than it is the other way around. And that's just visually, the important things for the player to focus on would be...flat spots in the fairway, the best angle into a specific hole location, if the designer has allowed for several viable but not clearly superior options where you can pick and create your own shot, those kinds of things. It's really important a course 'look' at least decent in a video game and push come to shove I'd probably pick a mediocre but visually stunning course over an incredibly strategic but very ordinary looking one, although if the strategic course has excellent 'golf visuals' that more than makes up for it in my book. Setting up a hole that creates interesting looking golf shots imho is what the game is all about. Just like an IRL course: ideally a great golf course would have you looking forward to your next shot (as long as you can find your ball), right? There are a bunch of courses in this game that really nail both the overall look and the 'golf visuals,' and for anyone who has played Necedah Pines (or 'great course X') without paying attention to the 'golf visuals' presented throughout I highly recommend you give it another go and look more closely at that. Yep, completely agree with everything you posted here. And "golf look" is a great way to put things. Another reason CSU is my favorite is the way he sculpted and placed his bunkers to create those looks. Reminded me of Pete Dye. One of my favorite looks on my most recent course was the basic 2nd hole because of the way I sculpted and placed a fairway bunker that create a really cool and unique look from the fairway behind it. Creating a blind shot look is also really hard to do well on this game, but when it's done well it's on of my favorite looks by far.
|
|
|
Post by zzfr33b1rdzz on Jan 20, 2020 2:12:23 GMT -5
What I like is that some members of this community give really good feedback about the design aspect of the courses. As I have read about the "golden age" architecture "template" holes, I haven't gone into any of my limited published courses with the thought of adding these types of architectural features, but have had some reviews point out stuff like 'Alps', 'Punchbowl', 'Redan', etc. and think to myself that is pretty cool I ended up with those types of holes without even knowing I was creating them..
Anyway, with regards to planting, I just try to make my courses 'look' like they could be real places..sometimes that is alot of planting and other times not so much. I guess it comes down to what you're trying to accomplish with the overall "look and feel" of the design.
I've often feel that the course designer is like making a diorama of a golf course, which usually means creating the environment around which the course is displayed..
Hopefully I've made some sort of sense...😁😁
|
|
|
Post by linkslover on Jan 20, 2020 7:18:09 GMT -5
As someone who has played club golf and virtual golf for about 30 of my 42 years, I'm always somebody who designs the hole first and the surrounds second. And as I'm improving with the designer, I often find myself using what land and planting the course has generated itself and adding to it to give it extra visual pizazz.
|
|
|
Post by rjwils30 on Jan 20, 2020 10:42:11 GMT -5
When I first started designing for the golf club I had a head full of architectural ideas and so I built my first two courses with loads of sculpting and architectural strategy but almost no additional planting. I figured people would still find the holes interesting to play and appreciate the strategic underpinnings of the design. Well most didn’t and the courses only received about 100 plays combined. At the time I was frustrated that there were nicely planted courses that had low level sculpting and benign strategy that we’re getting far more love on the forums and far more plays. I realized that you don’t need to over plant but you need root the course in a place, set it into a context, even if subtle it makes a big difference.
If you look at a course like winged foot, it’s has very little internal planting, mostly just large specimen trees. But there are moments where you find the edge of the course and there is an interface between the manicured course and the outside naturalized world. These moments give the course context and give it a level of finiteness that heightens the reading of the features inside the course.
In the end I would still take a well sculpted strategically interesting course over a pig with lipstick, but outside this architecture nerd forum I’m probably in the minority. if you want to attract a bit more attention it helps to set the course within a place and planting helps achieve that.
Keep in mind I have not been playing much these days and haven’t played your courses so this advice might not apply, just a general thought.
Rob
|
|
|
Post by Terry Grayson on Jan 20, 2020 12:07:04 GMT -5
I am guilty of being what Tyler writes about above
I am not very good admittedly with the strategic aspect of course design... I hear folks talk about angles, and all this stuff and i just have never really gotten it..
Occasionally I may luck up and get one right (Hole 6 at KDH) is one that came out kinda cool... Cape hole almost I think....
I hide the fact that I am not very good at strategic design with planting, and I think I am pretty good at that....Sadly though sometimes folks get lag
Maybe one day I will be able to marry both and create something really cool but Ill continue to design how I like my courses... If folks like it awesome, but I know its not for everyone and that too is cool
I look at folks designs like Mr rob above me and think, how in the hell... I try it and it just doesnt come out cool like that strategically speaking
I tend to play courses like artic, sindre, eric, andre, chantres, ben, etc that really make Immersive environments, and folks like Reeb, Dan, Mayo , Petty etc marry both very well.... I dig those as well
Good discussion here.... I love the variety of course designs across the board.... Makes the community great to have so many folks create such nice courses
|
|