Jump to content


Photo

Steam reviews - this is what we are dealing with!


  • Please log in to reply
111 replies to this topic

#81 nightowl

nightowl

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 426 posts

Posted 08 May 2016 - 04:57 AM

Well said, zmax. It doesn't take long before game graphics begin to look outdated. If they're already subpar (in some areas) to begin with, you've got yourself a problem.

#82 wim1234

wim1234

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 818 posts

Posted 08 May 2016 - 07:00 AM

the problem with better graphics is performance.

not eveyone has a fast gaming machine, especially the somewhat older guy, who plays golf rl fairly otfen.

since he is not a gamer he has not a gamimg puter, but would like to play a golfsimulation if it has good enough

ballphysics and gets the realism feel well enough.

i say, thats the consumers they should aim for...i think there are many many of those..but these are not on steam.

i do doubt if this will be succesfull on console, given the modern very flashy looking games.



#83 HaHo1

HaHo1

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 62 posts
  • LocationScotland

Posted 08 May 2016 - 08:17 AM

I'm not too sure age is relevant here.  I'm a somewhat older guy and am a first generation gamer.  First console was a Philips G7000 (Odyssey in the U.S.) in 1978 which had a golf game.  I do take the point that there are people who play golf in real life who never play computer games apart from golf ones and they won't have gaming rigs and are unlikely to spend money on their machines.   PP have said they don't want to restrict course designers because of performance concerns and this I'm sure will apply to future graphics features such as 3D grass etc.   Progress shouldn't be stifled because some fall behind in the hardware race.   Graphics cards quickly become outdated and prices tumble so as long as people understand they need a decent card in their rigs and invest in the right hardware, be it new machines or upgrades, then the consumer can keep up with the development of the game and it's a win-win.

 



#84 wim1234

wim1234

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 818 posts

Posted 08 May 2016 - 08:37 AM

now that looks like a great game,HaHo

i dont agree with the puterspecs tho.

if the game becomes too needed in performance, it will loose quite a bit of possible consumers.

as long as they make things optional this wont be a problem.



#85 DoGgs

DoGgs

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,688 posts
  • Locationcaerphilly

Posted 08 May 2016 - 08:41 AM

A lot is said about the graphics in TGC being superior to PG, but it's all an illusion.  I have well over a 1000 hrs in GNCD so know a thing or two about it, look at these two pics, the first is a lovely view from a hole at one of my older courses, cinnamon hills. Note that the view is into a low sun, the second pic is the same hole but looking away from the sun...not so pretty eh! in fact it looks ugly and lifeless.  Most if not all designers over at TGC try to chase the sun as much as possible, but if you are making a serious course you have to have holes running into and away from a low sun, so half of your holes will look like this.  PG does not suffer this issue, so are PG's graphics so outdated?  i think not.

20160508090739_1.jpg

20160508090630_1.jpg


  • LeazesNDR and wim1234 like this

Qaaa8vE.jpg


#86 wim1234

wim1234

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 818 posts

Posted 08 May 2016 - 11:50 AM

shhhhhhhh applauds dogz silently...some ppl rather dont want to know the truth.

i had noticed that too, tgc can look good one hole and bad next hole.

i am happy with pg graphics.



#87 DoGgs

DoGgs

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,688 posts
  • Locationcaerphilly

Posted 08 May 2016 - 12:15 PM

you should see courses with a midday sun, it makes bunkers look dreadful..you wont find many designers at TGC using that setting, in CF i don't even think about lighting.


Qaaa8vE.jpg


#88 theclubpro

theclubpro

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 561 posts
  • LocationSouth Carolina

Posted 08 May 2016 - 01:30 PM

Imo,there is no reason pp shouldn't shoot for the stars on graphics in the game,that's what the settings are for to tone down so older computers can handle it...
  • klapauzius likes this

#89 Buck

Buck

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,530 posts

Posted 08 May 2016 - 03:29 PM

Bunkers in TGC are indeed dreadful, but the lighting engine seems quite capable and the rough grasses look great to me (some volume to them)

 

The other thing I'd add - Those photos of TGC are realistic looking in terms of lighting and contrast, etc.

 

Gameplay is PG all day long, but there are absolutely elements of TGC that "look" a lot better (more realistic), especially specific coloration in many situations.



#90 DoGgs

DoGgs

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,688 posts
  • Locationcaerphilly

Posted 08 May 2016 - 04:41 PM

The grasses in TGC are indeed great, but you can only use so much of the stuff.  You could never make wells hollows in TGC, if you cover a 10th of the plot in grass it will slow to a crawl and not publish, i know cos i tried with TPC boston, had to remove 70% of my grasses...not good!


Qaaa8vE.jpg


#91 Buck

Buck

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,530 posts

Posted 08 May 2016 - 04:57 PM

The grasses in TGC are indeed great, but you can only use so much of the stuff.  You could never make wells hollows in TGC, if you cover a 10th of the plot in grass it will slow to a crawl and not publish, i know cos i tried with TPC boston, had to remove 70% of my grasses...not good!

 

Is this part of the "load the whole course up front" thing?

 

I'm still left scratching my head about all the "benefits" of modern golf games loading the entire course all at once...

:(


  • Ted_Ball likes this

#92 Kablammo11

Kablammo11

    Obscure Person

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,953 posts

Posted 08 May 2016 - 05:18 PM

Very good point, buck, I was wondering about that, too. I would not mind having a (short) loading break after each hole if that would mean that I can really go to town on every single hole and load it up with vegetal and others goodies to my heart's delight... It makes no sense to me that any feature being more than 500y away from the given golf hole should restrict my choices. Make that 200y.


  • Stephen Sullivan, frank70 and Ted_Ball like this

>>>>>>> Ka-Boom!





• Mulligan Municipal • Willow Heath • Pommeroy • Karen • Five Sisters • Xaxnax Borealis • Aroha • Prison Puttˆ

• The Upchuck   The Shogun  • Black Swan (•)

 

<<<<<


#93 Buck

Buck

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,530 posts

Posted 08 May 2016 - 05:33 PM

Very good point, buck, I was wondering about that, too. I would not mind having a (short) loading break after each hole if that would mean that I can really go to town on every single hole and load it up with vegetal and others goodies to my heart's delight... It makes no sense to me that any feature being more than 500y away from the given golf hole should restrict my choices. Make that 200y.

 

I feel exactly the same way - Remember how golf games would load the next hole while showing you the scorecard & hole overview map for the upcoming hole?

 

I would literally PREFER that.  Take out all the graphical benefits (which would be amazing), I found it useful to see the scorecard and especially a hole overview map (scorecard style) to plan out my upcoming tee shot



#94 Acrilix

Acrilix

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,832 posts
  • LocationBedford, UK

Posted 08 May 2016 - 07:08 PM

Remember how golf games would load the next hole while showing you the scorecard & hole overview map for the upcoming hole?

 

...... and how they all had artificial out of bounds around each hole because the surroundings didn't exist to, for example, slice one onto the next fairway, as you could in real life and can in JNPG.


life ................... don't talk to me about life ................

#95 DoGgs

DoGgs

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,688 posts
  • Locationcaerphilly

Posted 08 May 2016 - 07:11 PM

When i created TPC boston i was using massachucetts as reference, especially the grass volume.  When it came to planting, GNCD ground to a halt before i had planted a third of the amount you see in PG, so yes this load the hole course is not all its cracked up to be and a load time would not bother me either, more time to reach for my beer.


Qaaa8vE.jpg


#96 Buck

Buck

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,530 posts

Posted 08 May 2016 - 07:20 PM

...... and how they all had artificial out of bounds around each hole because the surroundings didn't exist to, for example, slice one onto the next fairway, as you could in real life and can in JNPG.


I'm far more concerned with how things in the normal area of play operate than "OB in the next fairway" quite honestly.

 

To Kablammo's point...it's a shame there's not something between "load entire course" and "load only 1 hole".

 

Not even sure why TGC would bother to load an entire course (other than the view I guess) since in that game you would need to purposely aim OB to even go there.  ;)



#97 Acrilix

Acrilix

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,832 posts
  • LocationBedford, UK

Posted 08 May 2016 - 07:30 PM

I love the freedom in JNPG to land anywhere you can hit it due to the whole course being rendered. I also love being able to see across the whole course, especially with real courses as it adds to the immersion. I just wish there was a way to set internal OOB on JNPG, as my local course has this on 3 holes..... in this instance the old 'one hole loaded' method would actually be better for some holes if I wanted to reproduce the course in JNPG than the way that it currently is!


life ................... don't talk to me about life ................

#98 Buck

Buck

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,530 posts

Posted 08 May 2016 - 07:33 PM

I love the freedom in JNPG to land anywhere you can hit it due to the whole course being rendered. I also love being able to see across the whole course, especially with real courses as it adds to the immersion. I just wish there was a way to set internal OOB on JNPG, as my local course has this on 3 holes..... in this instance the old 'one hole loaded' method would actually be better for some holes if I wanted to reproduce the course in JNPG than the way that it currently is!

 

I would take individual holes & surrounding area of much greater graphical quality over "entire course loaded at much lower graphics level" any day of the week and twice on Sundays...

 

I'm not surprised at all about all the reviews mentioning graphics.  I was worried this would happen.  We can take aim at reviewers who aren't spending enough time learning the nuance and detail of the PG gameplay, but the commentary about the dated looking graphics is very fair in most all the reviews.



#99 Crazycanuck1985

Crazycanuck1985

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts

Posted 08 May 2016 - 08:38 PM

Try not to worry about what other people say about the game. If you enjoy playing it, that's all that matters anyway. 



#100 Mike Jones

Mike Jones

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 6,159 posts

Posted 08 May 2016 - 08:38 PM

I'm far more concerned with how things in the normal area of play operate than "OB in the next fairway" quite honestly.

 

To Kablammo's point...it's a shame there's not something between "load entire course" and "load only 1 hole".

 

Not even sure why TGC would bother to load an entire course (other than the view I guess) since in that game you would need to purposely aim OB to even go there.  ;)

 

Trust me you wouldn't want to go backwards and create one hole in a vacuum essentially making you replant and recreate any adjacent holes over and over like you had to in years gone by. Those days are long gone and good riddance.

 

What we have in it's place is a system using LOD which means objects in the distance are rendered at much lower detail.


  • worrybirdie likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users