Real courses are blah

[Still Linksing]

Out of the best 30 to 40 courses for this game imo maybe 4-5 would be real designs.
Fictional are better in Links 2003.

Let me have it...

[sagevanni]

I agree......the designer can be way more creative................

Sage......

[Still Linksing]

Looking at my approximately top 80 courses, I have around 20 real.

That means 75% of the time fictional are better.
If I was to look at my top 150 or 200 courses, I think the fictional percentage would only get higher and possibly considerably higher.

[Adelade]

People like different things in courses and thats fine I'm the opposite end, with only 5 fictionals in my top 30-40, but probably a few more will join once I've played more of them. I think theres a lot of in-general pros and cons for both real and fictional as categories.

I'd say the main difference is that real courses are designed by people who usually have actual education in the field, often with years and years of professional experience as well, so its only natural for them to have an edge in that regard over us mostly-hobby APCD designers. On the flipside, fictional designers dont have to be limited by practical things like the necessity to appeal to the type of real golfers that arent so common in Links, and things such as safety, budget and maintenance. Irrigation for example is a humongous factor in real design - and complete non-factor for fictional designs (And even though some real designers will say that working with natural things like how water interacts with the land is a benefit rather than limitation, Im certainly very happy we APCD'ers dont have to! )

Another aspect is that recreating real courses in APCD can be much tougher work, at least without DEMs and such, whereas making fictional courses can often inspire a lot of freedom and pure passion that lets the designer feel more motivated to spend that extra effort on making details just a little bit nicer.

Fictional designs can be more tailor-made for what Links players usually like, but in my experience of my own perceptions of fictional designs, that often leads to unnatural choices and over-design, which Im not a fan of, so I havent found a lot of fictional designs that feel realistic in terms of layout that I enjoy as much as many of the real courses. I enjoy the illusion / immersion of playing a course that could exist in real life, and often theres a design choice that makes me go "Really? Theres no way a real course would be like that", and even if I try to ignore that sentiment, it still tends to put a stain on my enjoyment.

[BruMu]

Some Links Courses are blah.

Some Links Courses are good.

Some Links Courses are outstanding.


Has nothing to do with real/fictional imo. Depends on what the designer puts into it.

[Still Linksing]

I'd say the main difference is that real courses are designed by people who usually have actual education in the field, often with years and years of professional experience as well, so its only natural for them to have an edge in that regard over us mostly-hobby APCD designers.

And I think if anyone one of them was to create a course for Links 2003 rather than real people playing real golf, their real course and Links course would be two totally different designs?

[Still Linksing]

I enjoy the illusion / immersion of playing a course that could exist in real life, and often theres a design choice that makes me go "Really? Theres no way a real course would be like that", and even if I try to ignore that sentiment, it still tends to put a stain on my enjoyment.

I lose the immersion when I score lower than the world's best pros.
For anyone who says to toughen up the game, I play it now with what is as close to a believable and realistic difficulty.

Just throwing out discussion.

[Jimbo]

As you may have gathered I too am a "reallie". Not only does it give me something to nit pic but I also get to see both the genius of the original designers but the fantastic technical ability of the APCD current designers to replicate the greatness of the past and present.

[pmgolf]

I don't understand your next-to-last post, ...., but I agree with Adelade. Very few fictional courses rise to the level of Real courses. Even the very best examples of fictional courses - those of Mike Jones - are great because of the skillful use of the APCD design tool and not for the design of the courses. Augusta National and Whistling Straits are two of the best examples, along with Muirfield Village and St. Andrews. Look at how many memorable holes there are in the great courses.

But the fictional designs have great examples, too. Crooked Creek HD in one of my favorites. But I put the great fictional courses in the "Great for Links 2003" category, and the great Real courses in the "Great for the 400+ year old sport called Golf" category. The two categories are decidedly different.

JMO - each to his own.

Pete

[braden1308]

...., it's a video game so your expectations are not real. Naturally you can shoot lower than the pros because this isn't real, it's mechanical and you can't pass real life conditions on in a video game. To make a fictional course that's a challenge is one thing, but to be able to come close to re-creating a real design is something that needs more than imagination.

I don't have any fictional courses in my links library, not to say there aren't good ones, but I would rather play something I have played in real life or possibly may be able to play at some point.