1822 replies to this topic

[mebby]

I disagree - because my point is always "I don't know what you want" just saying this is "arcade" or this is "realistic" doesn't give any description to what you want so how can a developer create that. My argument has always been 2 tier'd 1) "Tell me exactly what you want without dumbing it down to simple words that could mean anything" and 2) As a game developer my job is to take what you've asked for and translate that into a game in a usable, understandable and fun way which the result is the same. Not implement in exactly the way you want because it has to suit more people than you, that's not me being ignorant - it's just that we can't cater for just the few. And I'll go for a third - and this is the one that I think me and you argued about before - it's to take all the feedback and come up with something unique and creative that no ones thought of. Because you're not really a good game designer if you only develop what the forums tell you to do. You have to be creative and groundbreaking

The problem is - it's very hard to understand what people want when they just use sweeping statements. Because you could make a golf game so realistic that no one - not even the hardest of hardcore would want to play it. So be descriptive and then the developers can work with that

Dude... there are/were pages and pages of posts detailing out everyone was after.  And your response to those details was exactly what I described above.  Just take the loft box as a simple example.  It's not even difficult to explain everything that's wrong with that but yet... what?  LOL!

[Tigers Agent]

the very, very few in this forum who suffer from one of many syndromes.

1. this game was built with me in mind and me only.

2. If I don't like it, no one should like it!

3. I'm having a problem with this game so we all must have the problem!

4. play my style of golf because that's the only way to play this game.

5. you're all wrong and no matter what you say I'm right! 

[DoGgs]

How do you see all the new features as DLC? I'd estimate this years version cost more than TGC1 and 2 individually and not much less than the two combined. The fact that you don't think 30 hours or more of gaming time and 20-30 guys working a year normally 12 to 14 hour days is worth £45, or whatever the cost is, isn't a greed an issue more that you don't understand the value and work that goes into making these things.

Would you care to run those new features by me again, maybe i've missed something??  because adding a handful of license courses ( not that they look that great ) and fixing issues from TGC 2 does not justify the price i'm afraid.  You can bleat about cost and manpower all you like, fact is there are other devs out there prob working twice as hard, and offer their games at great prices.  You also say that 2019 prob cost more to make than the other two...Whats that got to do with the consumer, were Joe public consulted about cost and outcome? and considering it appears to be about 90% identical to TGC 2, i fail to see why it would cost so much more, the game still trades off TGC 1 graphically, there are still no pot bunkers or any bunker improvements to speak of, yep guess i don't understand after all. 

[Buck]

Many of us watching a stream of the released game now..

 

- It's the same game that was leaked early - they appear to have lied about that or "massaged" that message - bad look

 

- The speed tree shadows from the wild behavior in even light winds is nearly seizure inducing - just ugh..

 

- Putting is perhaps better...not sure of the meaning there - perhaps referencing physics/ball breaking off head of putter

 

- Hardest club setting is easier than in TGC2

 

- Swing plane appears to matter more than tempo in terms of mis-hit and what happens - but the punishment for missing is reduced from TGC 2

 

- The consensus so far is:  The name should be TGC 2.19, not 2019

 

- It looks a bit more polished and will be very nice in 4k - JC will fill us in on this I'm sure  

 

- I'm liking the look of TPC Boston at the moment - should be fun to compare to our version here and other game versions in the past

[Mike Jones]

On the topic of realism....

 

*Personally when seeking realism in a golf game I'm looking for realistic physics which is a never ending goal as it's incredibly tough to dial everything in. The closer you get though the more realistic the game is regardless of your input method. Realistic ball flights such as accurate launch conditions, spins rates, apex points and decent angles and which match real world data as closely as possible. There are always bugs and corner cases where something goes wrong but the goal should remain the same.

 

I've hit a million golf balls in my life and still play the game to a pretty good standard so it's easy for me to spot when a game's ball flight is seriously off. For some people this might not matter but then we're moving away from the topic of realism.

 

*I'm looking for realistic looking and accurate courses based off Lidar data whenever possible and a course architect program that enables the input of that data so an armchair designer can achieve that too. 

 

*I'm looking for swing methods that give you as many of the variables as possible in relation to real golf. That means clubface, swing path, impact location simulation and if possible not all tied into each other via a controller axis for example. Of course any simulation whether it be a driving game or a golf gamer has to take decisions on how to support this as much as possible given the limitations of a mouse or controller but the goal should remain the same.

 

You can have all the above and still have a game that is easy to access and fun. Anthony points out how difficult real golf can be and he's right so to me that makes it a sensible choice to allow bigger margins of error for beginners so that they can also have fun with the game while at the same time playing a realistic game. As they get better they can dial back on the help in the same way that children take the stabilizers off a bike. The child was riding a bike in both scenarios (which as it's a real bike is by definition realistic) but initially the child has a little help to get them started.

 

IMO TGC series of games initially took a less realistic approach with bigger margins of error and one basic skill level where distance control of shots was (and still is) unrealistically easy via the 'dial a distance loft tool'. This meant while it was very accessible for beginners it soon becomes too easy for experienced players who's only option was to play user made courses that had been made unrealistically difficult in order to provide a challenge. 

 

In TGC 2, pro clubs were added in order to rectify this but even then the distance control was not addressed and people once again took to making 7800 yards courses with 20 yards wide fairways in order to provide a challenge.

 

I can completely understand all the choices that HB studios made and I'm not saying that any of them were wrong as they seem to be doing just fine from a financial standpoint. The point I'm making is that a lot of the key decisions they made took the realism away from their games and while Anthony (who I respect a lot BTW) might have different take, from my perspective it's why PG is to it's core a more realistic golf game. 

[mebby]

On the topic of realism....

 

*Personally when seeking realism in a golf game I'm looking for realistic physics which is a never ending goal as it's incredibly tough to dial everything in. The closer you get though the more realistic the game is regardless of your input method. Realistic ball flights such as accurate launch conditions, spins rates, apex points and decent angles and which match real world data as closely as possible. There are always bugs and corner cases where something goes wrong but the goal should remain the same.

 

I've hit a million golf balls in my life and still play the game to a pretty good standard so it's easy for me to spot when a game's ball flight is seriously off. For some people this might not matter but then we're moving away from the topic of realism.

 

*I'm looking for realistic looking and accurate courses based off Lidar data whenever possible and a course architect program that enables the input of that data so an armchair designer can achieve that too. 

 

*I'm looking for swing methods that give you as many of the variables as possible in relation to real golf. That means clubface, swing path, impact location simulation and if possible not all tied into each other via a controller axis for example. Of course any simulation whether it be a driving game or a golf gamer has to take decisions on how to support this as much as possible given the limitations of a mouse or controller but the goal should remain the same.

 

You can have all the above and still have a game that is easy to access and fun. Anthony points out how difficult real golf can be and he's right so to me that makes it a sensible choice to allow bigger margins of error for beginners so that they can also have fun with the game while at the same time playing a realistic game. As they get better they can dial back on the help in the same way that children take the stabilizers off a bike. The child was riding a bike in both scenarios (which as it's a real bike is by definition realistic) but initially the child has a little help to get them started.

 

IMO TGC series of games initially took a less realistic approach with bigger margins of error and one basic skill level where distance control of shots was (and still is) unrealistically easy via the 'dial a distance loft tool'. This meant while it was very accessible for beginners it soon becomes too easy for experienced players who's only option was to play user made courses that had been made unrealistically difficult in order to provide a challenge. 

 

In TGC 2, pro clubs were added in order to rectify this but even then the distance control was not addressed and people once again took to making 7800 yards courses with 20 yards wide fairways in order to provide a challenge.

 

I can completely understand all the choices that HB studios made and I'm not saying that any of them were wrong as they seem to be doing just fine from a financial standpoint. The point I'm making is that a lot of the key decisions they made took the realism away from their games and while Anthony (who I respect a lot BTW) might have different take, from my perspective it's why PG is to it's core a more realistic golf game. 

Excellent points.  Very well said.

 

JNPG is definitely the most realistic golf game I've ever played.  RTSM is a game changer and by FAR the most nuanced and realistic swing method available besides swinging a club in a simulator.

 

I truly think the main thing holding TGC back from moving towards this is true difficulty levels.  I respect them for sticking with an idea but they've done everything you can possibly do in order to move towards difficulty levels without actually implementing difficulty levels.

 

If I could merge the two games (TGC and JNPG) I'd be in heaven.  Oddly enough, TGC2 gets the majority of my time even though I think JNPG is technically a better game.

[mebby]

HBS has now removed the announcement that they put up earlier today.  Who knows what kind of stuff is going on behind the scenes right now but this is honestly the craziest release I think I've ever seen!

[Buck]

HBS has now removed the announcement that they put up earlier today.  Who knows what kind of stuff is going on behind the scenes right now but this is honestly the craziest release I think I've ever seen!

 

lol

 

People across the world are buying, playing and streaming the game right now and they're worried about an "announcement" still?

 

What a bizarre PR bungle the last 2 months for these guys..

[mebby]

Apex Hound video is up.  He's walking through Career Mode.

 

 

Sorry for the inconvenience Richard.

[DoGgs]

just watched some guy playing scottsdale, DoGgs wins!!!     

Hole 16, don't know why they failed to add in the stadia?? lazy! 

[mebby]

just watched some guy playing scottsdale, DoGgs wins!!!     

Hole 16, don't know why they failed to add in the stadia?? lazy! 

LOL!  No doubt your version in JNPG beats the pants of their version.  We knew that would be the case going in.

 

I was also hoping to see the rowdy crowd at 16.  HBS commented that it was in the game so maybe it only shows up on PGA TOUR events?  I'll be curious to see if the grandstands are there for official PGA TOUR events as well.  So maybe we just didn't see it because this was Q School only?  Who knows.

 

The other VERY odd thing was that a female won the Q school event.  While women CAN play in PGA TOUR events it's very rare so it makes me wonder if they have equal parts men/women in these events.  Not to star on a way on gender neutrality or anything but this isn't very authentic if they went that route.  I can get over it easily but just seems odd.

 

Chipping and flop shots (still can't believe they have a "flop shot" out of the bunker) LOOKED very odd.  Could've been the camera work but something seemed off about them.

 

Other than that I actually thought it looked good.  I liked the scoring on "hard" difficulty and I like that there didn't appear to be any "rubber band" scoring from the AI either.  I can see myself digging into this mode actually.  

[Buck]

Man I wish the textures were better..

It really doesn't seem like that aspect has advanced much from TGC 1

 

Very nice divots and ball marks in 2.19 though - I like those for sure!

[clubcaptain]

Watched the first 6 holes. Not a good start.

 

Crowds are as poor as they've always been. Everyone swaying from side to side ! No-one able to stand still. When a shot is hit no-one turns to watch the flight of the ball.

 

Putting animation is poor. Transition from backswing to forward swing is unrealistically abrupt.

 

Tree sway changes despite wind staying the same or changing by 1mph as each shot is taken.

 

 Still no smooth transition between textures.

[Buck]

Crowds are as poor as they've always been. Everyone swaying from side to side ! No-one able to stand still. When a shot is hit no-one turns to watch the flight of the ball.

 

Yeah - the whole crowd thing is so hard to do..

I saw one where the ball landed right in front of the crowd and they were all doing some generic animation looking up and towards the tee while the ball was in front of them on the ground.

 

The tech required for good crowds is likely never coming to HB/TGC - but who knows if 2k gets more involved over the long term.

 

Right now I'd say that crowd work is on par with mid 2000's Tiger Woods games....just barely better than the "zombies" they had way back when in Tiger

 

Also - why does everyone look like they got dressed at the Starburst factory store?

[Buck]

Apex Hound video is up.  He's walking through Career Mode.

 

 

Sorry for the inconvenience Richard.

 

Is that a screenshot from his 4k view of things?

That certainly has a fidelity that we don't get on the streams, which is encouraging.

 

Although I'll only be demoing it in 1080 myself.

[MERACE]

I may have said this before but I will say it again anyway.  

 

I'm all for "realism" in games especially sports games, but the "fun" factor will always trump pure realism.  That's why I've been playing TGC2 (and most likely TGC 2019) almost exclusively.

 

As for the value of a product (i.e. price), It is subjective and therefore no one is right or wrong in their opinion. 

 

 

-MERACE

[GoldenBear]

LOL!  Trust me on this.  I'd rather shit a pineapple than agree with Goldenbear so this is coming from a place of good intentions.

 

My issue with your statement like the one in your response to him is that you take it as your job to listen to what the gamer wants, and then tell them what they REALLY want.  While I understand that approach I personally think it's very flawed.  I know you're being sarcastic with him (he usually deserves that) but you full well know what he means when he says he's looking for realism.  The problem is that you always seem to turn that into your personal view of realism and then project that back on the user by telling them what they REALLY want when in fact it's not what they want at all.

 

You don't always have to go to extremes to debate a topic.  TGC has gotten much better at being realistic but it until certain things happen (like address the dial-a-distance loft box as a prime example) it will always lean towards arcade.  It's close enough for me to enjoy it for what it is but I do understand GB's point.

That is exactly what my point was.  Thank you.

[GoldenBear]

Would you care to run those new features by me again, maybe i've missed something??  because adding a handful of license courses ( not that they look that great ) and fixing issues from TGC 2 does not justify the price i'm afraid.  You can bleat about cost and manpower all you like, fact is there are other devs out there prob working twice as hard, and offer their games at great prices.  You also say that 2019 prob cost more to make than the other two...Whats that got to do with the consumer, were Joe public consulted about cost and outcome? and considering it appears to be about 90% identical to TGC 2, i fail to see why it would cost so much more, the game still trades off TGC 1 graphically, there are still no pot bunkers or any bunker improvements to speak of, yep guess i don't understand after all. 

It was obvious this would happen price wise.  After all HB Studios has to pay big license fees for reproduced courses...  Yawn

[GoldenBear]

just watched some guy playing scottsdale, DoGgs wins!!!     

Hole 16, don't know why they failed to add in the stadia?? lazy! 

Ouch!  Personally I cannot stand the look of TGC 3.0.  Your version of this course is miles ahead mate.

 

I will never get used to that astro turf look of the fairways in TGC 3.0  They look half as bad as the bunkers but that is more than enough to qualify as ugly and unrealistic looking.

[GoldenBear]

I may have said this before but I will say it again anyway.  

 

I'm all for "realism" in games especially sports games, but the "fun" factor will always trump pure realism.  That's why I've been playing TGC2 (and most likely TGC 2019) almost exclusively.

 

As for the value of a product (i.e. price), It is subjective and therefore no one is right or wrong in their opinion. 

 

 

-MERACE

For some like myself the more realistic the game, the more fun it is regardless of the difficulty to play it.

 

It is the reason I play rFactor 2 with no assists.  It is a premier sim that took me close to two years to even get decent at.  This is contrary to an arcade game that is easy to play from day one and will get boring to many fairly quick.  This is why I stopped buying arcade versions of sports games long ago.  

 

I do understand your point but just wanted to give you a different perspective on it.