QUOTED from ACRILIX
I think some of us would just like to see an end to consistently 'unrealistic' play in golf games. In real life, a pro might have a run of 7 birdies in 9 holes maybe a dozen times in their whole career, and even then that's probably just the very best of the golf world. The problem with computer golf is that players will do these 'super rounds' of -18 or more every time they play, day in, day out. It's laughably unrealistic, and anything that is introduced that adds some realism to lessen this happening should be welcomed. I doubt that anything will actually play a major part in stopping the 'silly' scores, but I applaud the attempt to make this game more realistic than anything that has gone before. 
So, bring on the unpredictable wind, the divots, and the occasional kid running on, and nicking your ball on the Municipals!! 
Do bring them, yes, all the wicked little things that make low scoring harder. By all means, pile it up! Still, as a serial low scorer in TWO (where, frankly, a birdie had about the same meaning as a par in real golf), I would like to point out a couple things about unrealistical super-easy game play:
- Getting that "regulation birdie"(IRL par) was quite tricky at times. One small lapse of attention or tiniest error of judgment on your part and you would be punished with a par (IRL bogie). You had to scramble, hole out, gamble etc to save your bird (IRL par). The entire challenge was quite like real pro golf at times, only one shot per hole less, on a par 54 course (IRL 72). My average score was around 52 shots per rounds in TWO: IRL -2 average.
- Imo it does not matter so much how easy or hard the gameplay is, as long as it's the same for all the players. The really good, ambitious players will always end up on top, because their obsessive ambition and competitive spirit will make them find ways to shave a few more shots off their score, no matter what the difficulty will be.
The magic of computer golf is not only is conjured up by the realism of the golfing challenge, but mostly by the gentlemanly competition against that "other guy", by the match that you crave to win. It's almost irrelevant if you win at levels of +3 or -24, all that matters is being one shot ahead in the end.
By all means, bring all these things that make scoring harder, but - and here I must disagree with you, Acrilix, even back in those super-low-scoring, super-easy TWO game conditions, the score may have been "laughably unrealistic", as you say, but the competition at times felt very, very real and very intense.
When teeing off against my group pals back in these days, going against guys like UppiTuppi, verodoug, gavarossi, AmouroRay73, KeeF_coFFee, VIXEN_VIKKI and so many others, I had to bring my A game every day or be ripped into tiny shreds by them. And if they dared teeing off with a cavalier attitude, I would punish them for it. Laughable scores, yes - deadly serious and super-fun social online gaming nevertheless!
I'm all for realism for PerfectGolf, Acrilix, and am not disagreeing with your comments. But what lured me here and what I would like to see in my future with this game, are more of some of the truly epic battles I had in TWO, those few I won as well as the many I lost. Which means that I would regret any sort of situation in which a higher degree of laudable realism would automatically result in less competitive drama.
I dare say it's not necessarily the advanced and unique ball physics that will make PerfectGolf a success, but mainly the crude, visceral FUN to be had by playing the game.
