Some basics in "realism"

[boynsy]

I'd like to preface this post by saying I have a lot of opinions on golf course design, and basically just want to take an opportunity to share them! I feel like this could potentially be of use to some designers, or maybe people will just find it interesting and have their say on the matter too!

Ideally, at least in my opinion, all designers in this game should be striving to create attractive courses that look like they could exist in real life, regardless of how fantastical the layout may be. This doesn't mean that fantasy is outlawed; in fact, quite the opposite. I love to see courses that blend outlandish features into a realistic environment - and I think that is the key. As long as the landscape looks real, the course can be quite crazy. Think Hoodoo Hills - nobody would ever get permission to build a course in such an environment but Yeti did it beautifully, with fantasy elements but ultimately achieving one of my favourite courses ever.

Those courses that struggle in the realism department often have wacky elevation changes, and have made no effort to integrate them into the course. A 100ft drop can be made to be a visually stunning element of the course, or alternatively it can be because you raised a square around the tee box to ridiculous heights. Everything should blend together in the landscape, and it should feel as if the holes are built into the land, even if they aren't.

Another massive component in achieving a realistic looking course is the real life playability. I should be able to stand on the tee, look out at the hole and see a landing area for a drive (I'm not saying don't make it small - by all means challenge a tee shot - but make sure there is somewhere to hit the ball) and maybe a second option for a safe shot. Then, assuming I hit my drive in the right spot, I should have a fair chance at hitting the green in regulation. I'm talking about a par 4 here for simplicity, so we're talking in the yardage of 260 to 500, taking elevation into account. This means my approach could be anywhere from a chip to a 3 wood, but (disregarding wind) I should always have a fair shot at green in regulation. Longer approaches should have larger greens with fewer defences as a general rule, but this is often broken, particularly in the final few holes of a course.

The features included in your holes are massive in considering the realism - steep slopes don't make for very good golf, and they definitely don't take grass very well so don't make a 75 degree fairway. Tiny greens make for odd looking approach shots and compromise the visuals of your course, unless very well worked, so try to avoid making putting surfaces too small. Massive bunkers are a pain for the greenstaff and cost money to build in the real world, so think about that before constructing the world's largest artificial beach down the side of your fairway.

Then there are more "layout" based aspects to realism - crossovers, for example, should be avoided in almost every situation (out of all the successful courses in the world, the Old Course at St Andrews is the only one I can think of that involves a crossover). While this is not always noticeable in this game, there are exceptions; if I'm hitting over a green that I just putted out on, I'm going to notice.

Your construction should be walkable in real life too. This doesn't mean taking 500 yard detours either; there should be (relatively) clear paths from tee to green and green to tee. This could be steps, or a clearing cut through the trees, or just the natural ground being flat enough to allow the golfer to make their own path. It is small details like this that really aid a course, giving it the feel of a real layout.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is to have fun building wild and wacky creations, but make me feel like I'm there. The extra effort in making your course look the part may well get it on tour one day!

[mrshoes]

Excellent advice there boynsy. These are certainly the kind of things I look for in a course and now I am trying my hand at designing I will be designing by these guidelines too. But what do you think about blind tee shots? Certainly many links style courses such as St Andrews and Royal Troon have a fair few of these. I am creating a links inspired course and have about 6 holes with blind tee shots, and one or two with a blind second shot (but a clear tee shot).

[boynsy]

Aug 31, 2015 14:48:25 GMT -5 mrshoes said:

Excellent advice there boynsy. These are certainly the kind of things I look for in a course and now I am trying my hand at designing I will be designing by these guidelines too. But what do you think about blind tee shots? Certainly many links style courses such as St Andrews and Royal Troon have a fair few of these. I am creating a links inspired course and have about 6 holes with blind tee shots, and one or two with a blind second shot (but a clear tee shot).

Real courses can get away with blind shots more easily than video game courses in my opinion, for a number of reasons - partly aesthetics and partly playability. 

Firstly, there is the view to consider. A blind shot, by its nature, means that your view will be restricted to directly in front of you. This means that there is no opportunity to create a striking visual element to the hole. In real golf, that isn't much of an issue because once the player walks over the hill, the hole opens up and is quite an experience, especially with the anticipation of seeing where your ball ended up. In TGC, we miss that, meaning that the hole will look pretty uninspiring. This applies in another respect too; real golf is a lot more of an experience than TGC - you get to look around much more, walking to your ball, standing over your shot, looking towards the green and so on. TGC skips this and most players don't bother to "stop and smell the roses". This is true for both tee shots and approaches.

Secondly, there is also a minor issue with aiming. In real golf, people don't aim to be as exact as in TGC. Getting it on or near the green is good enough for most people, so not having much of a visual reference point doesn't hinder too much. In the game, however, we like to play target golf and being blinded takes the edge off of this somewhat in my opinion - I want to be able to hit my shot quickly without having to pan around too much to see how the hole unfolds in front of me.

I personally do not have an issue with blind shots, as long as I get a visual reference point to show me where I should be aiming, like a tree or lighthouse. However, they should be used in moderation because, as mentioned, they are pretty average views. They also don't provide the same challenge in game as they do in real life, with zoom to target and the HUD. It would be interesting to see what other people think about this issue though.

[mnguy12000]

I'll go on to say that longer par threes with the hole tucked behind a bunker with the slope running away and to the opposite side of the hole is bad design. too many holes course have had this. If you want a 220 par three tucked behind a bunker, 3 yards on, then make it so you have a bail out area either to the right or left that DOESN'T slope further away form the hole.

Ideally you would want a funnel effect that can help the ball get a little closer with slope. If I hit the middle of the green, that should be a safe play...

[boynsy]

Sept 4, 2015 9:50:12 GMT -5 mnguy12000 said:

I'll go on to say that longer par threes with the hole tucked behind a bunker with the slope running away and to the opposite side of the hole is bad design. too many holes course have had this. If you want a 220 par three tucked behind a bunker, 3 yards on, then make it so you have a bail out area either to the right or left that DOESN'T slope further away form the hole.

Ideally you would want a funnel effect that can help the ball get a little closer with slope. If I hit the middle of the green, that should be a safe play...

I sort of posted this looking at the general layout of the course as a whole, rather than individual aspects of individual holes, but you are definitely right. In short, a golf hole should give me a fair chance at hitting the fairway, then the green, then two putts for my par. If the fairway is impossibly tight, or the green can't possibly be reached in regulation, or the pin is cut so inaccessible as to render a two putt a minor miracle then the hole is poorly designed and should be re-thought.

[mcbogga]

Two comments:

While blind shots are an afterthought when playing all aids on as you can just scout cam over them - they really make a difference if its turned off. In no aids play you may well choose a longer approach just to not get a blind approach. Also some courses that plays really well with scout cam on do not hold up with it off. Pretty much the same considerations as for real courses are valid in game as well. A good strategic blind shot is a beautiful thing.

On the hole design - they don't all have to be the same. The best courses have a mix of hole types and difficulties. Nothing wrong having a long, narrow par 4 with a smallish sloping green on a course as the "monster hole" - but 9 of them is just bad design. Short par 4s that are well executed and gives the player a choice of a safe birdie with the lay up or gambling for the eagle knowing that any miscue will likely yield par are my favorite holes both in game and real life. 18th at Ballylough is a great example. 10th at Riviera being the archetype.