How real does it need to be

[bmckenzie69]

I don't play the game a lot, so I haven't experienced a lot of different courses. However, I played one approved course recently that seemed to have ridiculous level changes on many of the holes. I wondered how IRL a person would physically get from tee to green. That prompted this thread, and relates to my current course design. How realistic do the holes need to be to do well in the design Competition? I am making sure there is a path from tee to green for all my holes, but in a couple of instances the path would not likely occur IRL. I don't want to submit a course that does not have a chance at competing because of this.

[b101]

The more realistic/believable you can make it, the better.

[ErixonStone]

I wouldn't necessarily be concerned with things like whether your paths would exist in real life, or whether any particular drop is too much. I wouldn't put so much stock into "realism" or whatnot, either.

I would pay attention to how well anything and everything is executed.  Are transitions smooth? Are cliffsides good-looking? Are the risk/reward options fair? Can a golfer play it safe and get around with 18 pars, reasonably? Are greens contoured in a way to accept approaches, where necessary?

Take Caldera Furiosa, for example - a semi-finalist in this contest last year.  The course had crazy drops and rises, but maintained excellent playability and generally very good sculpting.  The course pushed the limits in a few ways, but was extremely fun to play.  It didn't win because other courses had a tip-top level of execution, not because Caldera Furiosa was "too unrealistic."

[b101]

I agree with lots of that but realism and playing true-to-life is very much a good thing. By all means make the location fantasy, but the core of it has to be logical, sensible golf around good principles. I am completely on-board with the need for being technically solid, but focusing on transitions for example, just doesn't make sense - there are perfectly good courses in real life that don't mow to a perfect curve, because that's natural. Also, look at any RJWils course, Windstone etc.

By all means, let's avoid the super harsh 90 degree transition, but let's not encourage rookies to put that on the same level as coming up with varied hole designs within a consistent theme, which is far harder and a more beneficial skill to develop.

[lessthanbread]

For me there’s a couple different ways to look at it. I very much appreciate fictional courses that are designed so realistically, they could exist in real life. It’s an extraordinary challenge to have all the capabilities to do whatever you want in the designer but be able to stay within the bounds of what course architects deal with and must consider in real life.

I also appreciate the more fantasy fictional courses set in extreme and awe inspiring places that still maintain the strategic characteristics of a well designed course within that environment. The key here is to make the setting look amazing while still realistic. Playing a course on TGC that lacks navigable paths between holes is not a plus in my mind but also not necessarily a deal breaker either as long as the course itself is designed well and the environment is aesthetically pleasing. I just appreciate a nice balance between pure fantasy and realistic

[mctrees02]

Sept 20, 2020 11:23:51 GMT -5 lessthanbread said:

The key here is to make the setting look amazing while still realistic.

I think this is a very interesting statement and one that merits discussion.

One side of the discussion is that a designer should first focus on the course being visually stimulating to keep the player wanting to come back to it again and again when they have thousands of other courses they could switch to for their next round.

The other side of the discussion is that designer’s primary focus should be on building an interesting design that provides the golfer a blend of challenge, fun, and strategic decision making that provides enough enjoyment that the player wants to come back to learn more about how to score on the course.

In real life, a golfer rarely has the option to just drive to another course if they don’t like the course surrounds, sunlight, weather and so the quality of the design and conditioning are of primary importance.

Likewise, the designer typically doesn’t have control over the course surrounds and must make the most of the land they are given. Many of America’s most highly regarded courses (Oakmont, Merion, Winged Foot, Prairie Dunes) are beautiful because of how the golf hole lays naturally with the land and creates a visually appealing sense of place that subconsciously tells the golfer that this hole was meant to be on this land.

If the designer is given a great piece of coastline, then they must build a course that maximizes the natural beauty of its surrounding. Look at something like Torrey Pines South. Rees Jones built the least interesting golf course that could possibly be built when you have a stunning cliff side above the ocean as well as canyons jutting into the property. Instead of figuring out how to maximize the 1200yds of viable coastline and a stunning canyon, he wasted the canyon on a par 3 and then most of the coastline on the next hole...and didn’t even build a hole that doesn’t come close to bringing the coastline into play. He then wasted the rest of it on green that is 60yds short of the cliff edge and then transfers to a tee box running away from the ocean and it’s never to be seen again.

[Lifeonaboard]

Here are a couple of ways I like to think about this topic. One is to think about it like movie dialogue. A lot of good movies get praised for having realistic dialogue but if you actually compare that to real life it's not even close. In real life people get interrupted a lot, can't think of the right thing to say immediately or go on long pointless tangents which wouldn't make a good movie. The key there is to cut out the worst parts of reality so it still seems realistic but it's better. Like thinking of a good memory, your brain just ignores all the little bad things that happened along with it. Another way I think about it is if you have a really solid course layout with good hole designs that are fun to play, wouldn't it be better to have it in the most interesting, beautiful, memorable or unique location possible?

[mctrees02]

Would it be really cool if Pine Valley was in Central Park or Augusta National was in the Grand Canyon? Sure it would.

Would it feel like that golf course belonged there? Ehhh....not so much.

Likewise, if somebody built Cypress Point in Tulsa instead of Pebble Beach...it wouldn't be nearly as interesting.

The best example of what you're saying you want in video game design might be Shadow Creek. It's a visually stunning golf course that feels like you're around the corner from Pinehurst...except for the fact that when you leave the property you're surrounded by a rough part of town and some industrial warehouses in the middle of the freakin' desert. I guess it's ok because Las Vegas is built on blending fantasy and reality...but to me Shadow Creek epitomizes the design style you prefer.

[bmckenzie69]

Wow, lots of great discussion on this one! Thanks everyone for the input. There is a LOT to consider, and I suppose I just have to make it mine. As long as it is a course that is fun to play but still a challenge, has a variety of shot types from hole to hole, is visually stunning, and has every hole well thought out, I will have a chance at getting past round one. 😁 This is a great community of players and designers, and I am looking forward to seeing what all of the other rookie designers come up with considering all the support and advice available to us. Thanks!

[grovey31]

Sept 20, 2020 8:49:27 GMT -5 bmckenzie69 said:

How realistic do the holes need to be to do well in the design Competition?

How realistic do the holes need to be is a different question to that of how realistic does the environment need to be. The question I think you should always start with is "what do I want this course to be". Is it a fantasy course that is obviously not something that could be built or played IRL? Is it something that real golfers could play and walk/ride? Is it a blend of the two? Once you figure that out, then you just need to stick to that game plan and execute that plan to the best of your ability.

The goal no matter which path you choose should always be to mesh the holes and the environment as much as possible. That is the best way to get an immersive feel while playing. When it comes to designing the holes themselves, my advice is to focus on the strategy, variety, and playability and how they fit into your desired environment.
 

[mctrees02]

I came across this old thread yesterday evening and it's a very insightful read with contributions from many of the game's most respected designers. What is YOUR Design Philosophy

[Terry Grayson]

I always think first and foremost (It is a game) BUT.....

As others have said dependant upon what you the designer is after is the key...


If you want something that could be real, stick to that philosophy the entire time... Create a course and environment that seems real, and could be real.... The locale, the plantings, make it look natural
for whatever region your course is set in..

One thing is SCALE a lot of folks miss out on proper scale of a myriad of things....Proper scale in designing can make a course really stand out... Stand on out how great, or stand out on how bad

Im no expert at any of these,and all these answers above were great, I just wanted to throw the scale thought out there...

And plantings Ill add that: Make the planting work not only look like it belongs in the environment you are creating but that it belongs in the spot in the plot where you are placing it... Dont just plop down a bunch of items and call it down make it look like the item was born there

Just my thoughts