|
Post by tastegw on Jul 7, 2016 20:15:18 GMT -5
Sadly, most of those who need to read this post, never will because they prolly do not visit the forums, but I carry on.
Q: What are the most important aspects of a Golf Course? A: it should be the course itself. how it flows, how it plays, how it challenges and how it forgives.
Sadly, it seems most peoples number 1 answer is not that, their answers are "how do i feel", "how is the surroundings looking", "oh look over there, its a train track!" ( like when did a train track ever make you go "awe hell ya!" in real life, or a football field, or a corn field, or any other really common man made thing)
---------------
Figure out what the intended difficultly was for that setup on the course you are playing:
is it meant to be really tough? if it is, do not rate it poor because you did not shoot lights out. is it meant to be easy for the rookies? if it is, do not rate it poor because you did indeed shoot lights out.
Try to understand all the aspects that went into making the actual course (while not focusing so much on the fluff)
Sculpting can really make a course pop, play better, offer up options that are not always visible from all angles and generally are able to offer up challenges throughout the course. Did the designer use single shapes all over his course, not really thinking out the overall design flow, but instead taking the easy path and randomizing the entire course routing, .....or did the designer bring in a complex hole routing system that actually makes sense and you can tell its not the simple shape here shape there and move on. Are the bunkers playing like actual bunkers? or were they just laid out and forgotten about? Bunkers need sculpting, and its not a "just for looks" thing either, if they are all flat and flush with the terrain that flows around them, they are not going to present a proper challenge once a player lands in them. Well thought out and executed bunkers are a rarity in this game, one of the most overlooked aspects. Instead, designers wish to add wedding chapels, airports and other rubbish to mask the more ignored areas that actually had priority in importance.
In a perfect world, a course will be both a blast to play and a blast to take in and look at. Take the real Wolf Creek for example, its breath taking, at least it is to me, and there is very little fluff, its all about contrast and using the natural terrain as the eye candy. I have never played the course in person, but from the photo's it does indeed look fun to play.
When a course like Buzzard's Wake is getting a poor rating, and other very well designed courses get poor ratings, its deflating to the rest of us designers. Some of us try not to pump out the cookie cutter courses just to get good ratings, there is a need for courses like Buzzard's Wake in this game, rating them poorly is not helping you the community get more of them.
so much more to say, but I will leave it at that. it is bothersome to me in a way that some courses that are not so great playing wise are out shining the actual true gems in the rating system due to the overvalue of fluff.
|
|
|
Post by coruler2 on Jul 7, 2016 20:36:34 GMT -5
Sadly, most of those who need to read this post, never will because they prolly do not visit the forums, but I carry on. Q: What are the most important aspects of a Golf Course? A: it should be the course itself. how it flows, how it plays, how it challenges and how it forgives. Sadly, it seems most peoples number 1 answer is not that, their answers are "how do i feel", "how is the surroundings looking", "oh look over there, its a train track!" ( like when did a train track ever make you go "awe hell ya!" in real life, or a football field, or a corn field, or any other really common man made thing) --------------- Figure out what the intended difficultly was for that setup on the course you are playing:is it meant to be really tough? if it is, do not rate it poor because you did not shoot lights out. is it meant to be easy for the rookies? if it is, do not rate it poor because you did indeed shoot lights out. Try to understand all the aspects that went into making the actual course (while not focusing so much on the fluff)
Sculpting can really make a course pop, play better, offer up options that are not always visible from all angles and generally are able to offer up challenges throughout the course. Did the designer use single shapes all over his course, not really thinking out the overall design flow, but instead taking the easy path and randomizing the entire course routing, .....or did the designer bring in a complex hole routing system that actually makes sense and you can tell its not the simple shape here shape there and move on. Are the bunkers playing like actual bunkers? or were they just laid out and forgotten about? Bunkers need sculpting, and its not a "just for looks" thing either, if they are all flat and flush with the terrain that flows around them, they are not going to present a proper challenge once a player lands in them. Well thought out and executed bunkers are a rarity in this game, one of the most overlooked aspects. Instead, designers wish to add wedding chapels, airports and other rubbish to mask the more ignored areas that actually had priority in importance. In a perfect world, a course will be both a blast to play and a blast to take in and look at. Take the real Wolf Creek for example, its breath taking, at least it is to me, and there is very little fluff, its all about contrast and using the natural terrain as the eye candy. I have never played the course in person, but from the photo's it does indeed look fun to play. When a course like Buzzard's Wake is getting a poor rating, and other very well designed courses get poor ratings, its deflating to the rest of us designers. Some of us try not to pump out the cookie cutter courses just to get good ratings, there is a need for courses like Buzzard's Wake in this game, rating them poorly is not helping you the community get more of them. so much more to say, but I will leave it at that. it is bothersome to me in a way that some courses that are not so great playing wise are out shining the actual true gems in the rating system due to the overvalue of fluff. Well said, but your first statement is sadly true- 90% of people who rate won't read this or understand this
|
|
|
Post by mcbogga on Jul 7, 2016 21:37:50 GMT -5
So - good is good and bad is bad?
Some like fluff. Some, like me, could not care less.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2016 22:07:19 GMT -5
Sadly, most of those who need to read this post, never will because they prolly do not visit the forums, but I carry on. Q: What are the most important aspects of a Golf Course? A: it should be the course itself. how it flows, how it plays, how it challenges and how it forgives. Sadly, it seems most peoples number 1 answer is not that, their answers are "how do i feel", "how is the surroundings looking", "oh look over there, its a train track!" ( like when did a train track ever make you go "awe hell ya!" in real life, or a football field, or a corn field, or any other really common man made thing) --------------- Figure out what the intended difficultly was for that setup on the course you are playing:is it meant to be really tough? if it is, do not rate it poor because you did not shoot lights out. is it meant to be easy for the rookies? if it is, do not rate it poor because you did indeed shoot lights out. Try to understand all the aspects that went into making the actual course (while not focusing so much on the fluff)
Sculpting can really make a course pop, play better, offer up options that are not always visible from all angles and generally are able to offer up challenges throughout the course. Did the designer use single shapes all over his course, not really thinking out the overall design flow, but instead taking the easy path and randomizing the entire course routing, .....or did the designer bring in a complex hole routing system that actually makes sense and you can tell its not the simple shape here shape there and move on. Are the bunkers playing like actual bunkers? or were they just laid out and forgotten about? Bunkers need sculpting, and its not a "just for looks" thing either, if they are all flat and flush with the terrain that flows around them, they are not going to present a proper challenge once a player lands in them. Well thought out and executed bunkers are a rarity in this game, one of the most overlooked aspects. Instead, designers wish to add wedding chapels, airports and other rubbish to mask the more ignored areas that actually had priority in importance. In a perfect world, a course will be both a blast to play and a blast to take in and look at. Take the real Wolf Creek for example, its breath taking, at least it is to me, and there is very little fluff, its all about contrast and using the natural terrain as the eye candy. I have never played the course in person, but from the photo's it does indeed look fun to play. When a course like Buzzard's Wake is getting a poor rating, and other very well designed courses get poor ratings, its deflating to the rest of us designers. Some of us try not to pump out the cookie cutter courses just to get good ratings, there is a need for courses like Buzzard's Wake in this game, rating them poorly is not helping you the community get more of them. so much more to say, but I will leave it at that. it is bothersome to me in a way that some courses that are not so great playing wise are out shining the actual true gems in the rating system due to the overvalue of fluff. Cliff's Notes: Don't be a freaking douchenozzle when you finish a course and be honest about the course & not your game that particular 15 minutes of your life.
|
|
|
Post by boomboom on Jul 7, 2016 22:51:41 GMT -5
I agree to a point, but I have never in my life even seen a course with nothing.
I like the arctic fury Iron Fall cobra edition 100X time more than Buzzards Wake. Buzzards while I got it and rated it high, i felt the difficulty was to obvious and forced. Need to come in from left, so block the left side of the landing area with either a bunker or no area or sculpt the fairway to kick right. Tuck the pin left, sculpt the green to kick right with no landing area left. It was just to in your face obvious that there was little intention to provide the golfer with any opportunity to score or get near the hole without extreme draw or fade from an opposite lie. That and Firm and Fast, just simple overkill. I'm not surprised it got a poor rating. There was nothing to look at, and it was tricked up to raise scores.
Sure I enjoyed playing it, but have to say I'm not enough of a fan to rave about it over and over.
But I rated it high in recognition of what was being designed and the intention of the designer and recognize the designer achieved just their intentions quite well.
I have said Buzzards was not my cup of tee, but still rated it high as i do many courses for the same reasons. I look for what the designer intended and whether they achieved that intention.
I can rate many kinds and styles of courses high, from the see nothing to the Arctic Fury so called fluff.
This pigeon hole cookie cutter BS being foisted on people is wrong IMHO, there's plenty of room for many different styles and types of courses. Yeah, the very same thing being complained about is being suggested, just another kind of cutter should get the high rating is all that is being suggested.
All I ever hear from you taste is I don't like the standard shapes, or titty tees, and 1 green there was a better play missing the green and boom, low rating. Those standard shapes were taken from real life and using them allows for more equal and clean fairway run-offs, but not even recognized from an self proclaimed expert. Many courses in RL also use a standard tee-box predominantly, but do so in your game and you kill the rating. You are just as guilty as the crowd you are complaining about. You have an extremely short list of how things should be, and any course meeting that limited criteria goes high in your books, outside that they go low. You are just as guilty as the crowd you are complaining about.
There's room for all kinds of courses, fluffy to dull and boring, hard to easy and everything in between.
I'm sure you may like to view yourself as being open and objective, but in watching your reviews you will call the same things good and bad depending on the designer. i.e Any other designer but reeb designs greens to kick the ball away from the hole and not leave an avenue to the good shot and you would be all over them like white on rice.
|
|
|
Post by tastegw on Jul 7, 2016 23:19:21 GMT -5
hey boom, you asked me to do your course a second time around. i saw tittie teeboxes, and spoke on it here is what i am talking about its not that you used the round shape to make them, its how you actually rounded them out with the sculpting, instead of flattening them. again, thats just a details thing and really has no impact on gameplay, but does show a bit of laziness. i didnt give you a low rating either, i gave it a 7, thats good. thats actually pretty darn close to its average user rating. the course was nice, i said so. what more do you want?
|
|
reebdoog
TGCT Design Competition Directors
Posts: 2,742
TGCT Name: Brian Jeffords
Tour: CC-Pro
|
Post by reebdoog on Jul 7, 2016 23:28:34 GMT -5
Boom, that's the kind of post I was looking for in my thread. I think a lot of what you said is why after this summer showdown contest I think I'm going to bow out of "contests" for good. It's causing me and other designers to put out courses that we may otherwise not make. I like my work and I find it fun to work the challenging bits and have to fight for par by making a great shot...but not everybody does and honestly it's not as much fun to make. Thank you for taking time to post your thoughts. While I don't feel like I "tricked it up" very much I totally get what you're saying and while I may not feel as strongly I do agree. I personally feel that the "tricked up courses" are the ones with greens that are freaking impossible or push the ball way off all over the place. But it's really just another means to the same end so I get it. The CC contest course for me is going to go another direction from the last couple I've done. We'll see if that makes a difference. Thanks again!
|
|
|
Post by coruler2 on Jul 7, 2016 23:50:58 GMT -5
hey boom, you asked me to do your course a second time around. i saw tittie teeboxes, and spoke on it here is what i am talking about its not that you used the round shape to make them, its how you actually rounded them out with the sculpting, instead of flattening them. again, thats just a details thing and really has no impact on gameplay, but does show a bit of laziness. i didnt give you a low rating either, i gave it a 7, thats good. thats actually pretty darn close to its average user rating. the course was nice, i said so. what more do you want? No nipples or areola? How are those titties?
|
|
|
Post by jacobkessler on Jul 8, 2016 0:15:02 GMT -5
hey boom, you asked me to do your course a second time around. i saw tittie teeboxes, and spoke on it here is what i am talking about its not that you used the round shape to make them, its how you actually rounded them out with the sculpting, instead of flattening them. again, thats just a details thing and really has no impact on gameplay, but does show a bit of laziness. i didnt give you a low rating either, i gave it a 7, thats good. thats actually pretty darn close to its average user rating. the course was nice, i said so. what more do you want? No nipples or areola? How are those titties? Somebody needs to do some more sculpting! Taste, thanks for bringing this up, the ratings people give really tick me off sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by kireishoujo on Jul 8, 2016 6:10:36 GMT -5
I vote anything that looks nice and plays fine a 10. I know the hard work and time that goes into that and appreciate it, they get a 10.
Anything slightly less gets a 7-9.
Only time I ever rate lower than 5-6 is if the course is almost intentionally bad or mostly auto-generated.
Irving's courses get an automatic 0.
|
|
|
Post by mcbogga on Jul 8, 2016 6:23:38 GMT -5
I've given five or six 10s overall. Give a lot of 7s and 8s but for more it needs to be spectacular.
|
|
|
Post by boomboom on Jul 8, 2016 8:05:50 GMT -5
Boom, that's the kind of post I was looking for in my thread. I think a lot of what you said is why after this summer showdown contest I think I'm going to bow out of "contests" for good. It's causing me and other designers to put out courses that we may otherwise not make. I like my work and I find it fun to work the challenging bits and have to fight for par by making a great shot...but not everybody does and honestly it's not as much fun to make. Thank you for taking time to post your thoughts. While I don't feel like I "tricked it up" very much I totally get what you're saying and while I may not feel as strongly I do agree. I personally feel that the "tricked up courses" are the ones with greens that are freaking impossible or push the ball way off all over the place. But it's really just another means to the same end so I get it. The CC contest course for me is going to go another direction from the last couple I've done. We'll see if that makes a difference. Thanks again! Really depends on the audience, but i agree totally. These contests are beyond not for me anymore. There's just so few right ways to do things in a sea of endless options with pressure to pigeon hole every course into one particular style. However you no wasted time, I think you built a major championship course here. The requirement to fade and draw against the lie to get anywhere near the pins with about a yard of room for error will make for a great test of the very best players. Curious if this can be multi pinned though and keep that level throughout 4 days. I'm sure I will find out as the schedulers are pretty good here. One of the best jobs to date to build a course that lowers the scores without it being a complete mockery of a golf course IMHO. However I'm now of the mind that it's up to HBS to increase difficulty of the game and not the designers so some of my comments come from that direction. Taste. After 2 years of constant suggestions of what is good, what should be popular, what should get rated high and the community have still not come around, maybe they never will, but maybe they are not wrong either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2016 10:06:27 GMT -5
hey boom, you asked me to do your course a second time around. i saw tittie teeboxes, and spoke on it here is what i am talking about its not that you used the round shape to make them, its how you actually rounded them out with the sculpting, instead of flattening them. again, thats just a details thing and really has no impact on gameplay, but does show a bit of laziness. i didnt give you a low rating either, i gave it a 7, thats good. thats actually pretty darn close to its average user rating. the course was nice, i said so. what more do you want? Dude, we play a computer golf game. It's likely those are the only titties our players see all year.
|
|
|
Post by jacobkessler on Jul 8, 2016 10:26:46 GMT -5
Essentially I have a rating scale for the courses I play to balance it out: 10- A course that would be a contender in my top 5 of all time. 8-9- A course that I really liked, but it could use a little work to be better. 6-7- A course that I like, but it just isn't very well done. 4-5- A course that has good ideas, but isn't executed well. 2-3- A course that I simply didn't like. 1- An autogen that has had work put into it to make it look a little better 0- A bland autogen.
|
|
|
Post by tastegw on Jul 8, 2016 10:27:16 GMT -5
@ Irving You left the door wide open, but I wont bite this time
|
|