42 replies to this topic

[Ron Piskorik]

It's interesting that the people who use it are very vocal.... everyone except me in this thread, and yet the poll shows it is only 60-40. 

 

It may bet that they are more interested in a more "realistic" putting experience and not a "perfect" putting experience.  I also really like the new cup physics after getting used to not being able to ram the ball into the cup.  Those 4 to 6 feet putts on steeper slopes are not automatic anymore.  You can't just hit it firm and take the breake out of it.  When I lip them out now it is because I hit them to hard or soft for the slope or miss my snap by a little.  I know it is my fault.  

 

I also agree with JoeF that the ejector cup needs to be fixed.  I only had it happen a couple of times and I play about 4 or 5 hours a day. Some lipouts look a little strange but I feel that that I misread the putt or the snap enough to actually lipout.  

[Buck]

It's interesting that the people who use it are very vocal.... everyone except me in this thread, and yet the poll shows it is only 60-40.

If being fair, I don't know if I'd assign "40%" to the favoring non-Realistic/Bumpy side as 12%-ish of that never even tried moving off Perfect.

(at least that's how it sounds based upon the wording of the question - maybe those respondents aren't answering it that way - not sure)

[Sliceapottomus]

for me it is too random, and too extreem and punishes a good putter that reads the green well. 

[clint]

I tend to always use 'realistic' or 'bumpy', depending on the type of course I feel could realistically have these greens. Mountain courses I mostly check 'bumpy'. Most of all the courses I check 'realistic'. Only for the top notch A+ real courses (like Augusta) I feel using 'perfect' is .. well 'realistic' .

Same here

[zmax - sim]

My 2 cents:

 

1:   A lot of players, maybe more than half, see this game as what it is, just a game.  Any randomness with putting is unacceptable.  The ones that see it as a simulation, will embrace it because it happens in real golf so it should happen in this simulation as well.

 

2:  The putting mechanism/stroke is too easy for all swing types.  In real golf, getting that little ball to hit your target/line is very difficult to do, even for the Pro's.  Practically every putting stroke in this game (for good players) is a perfect stroke.  The ones that view this as a game, don't want to see their perfect putts whobble offline.  And I don't think making putting harder is the solution.  Doing so will just make players quit the game.

[Sliceapottomus]

I agree with what zmax is saying.. I would like to add that the movement in the realistic setting is more like  what you would see on airated greens after a few weeks of  of grow back... I posted a woodys  video test some time ago.  This video should speak for itself...These are putts that on perfect greens would have gone in 95 % of the time, The power is not a given if you are not using a meter. I know that the pro's do not always get  the perfect  billiard table green surface(as was evident in torey pines) but they get it more often than not. Also rules are up for debate, and prob gonna be changed, on even being able to fix spike marks in your line...You do not see the  tour courses airating greens before the pros play. Agree or not, what we have to decide is how tournaments should be set.. how people play their ladder matches and pick up games is between them... here is the link post number 96 is where you find video..http://www.perfectpa...y-option/page-5. if the randomness and deviations were set lower I might be more inclined to try it out in tourney's

[Drgnslyr221]

Slice is right, imo. I rarely play greens irl that have the randomness of realistic. Maybe I'm lucky, but that's my observation. I'd welcome a setting between realistic and perfect.

[SDS]

Realistic isn't perfect, but it's better than Perfect. Or something.

[frank70]

My 2 cents:

 

1:   A lot of players, maybe more than half, see this game as what it is, just a game.  Any randomness with putting is unacceptable.  The ones that see it as a simulation, will embrace it because it happens in real golf so it should happen in this simulation as well.

 

2:  The putting mechanism/stroke is too easy for all swing types.  In real golf, getting that little ball to hit your target/line is very difficult to do, even for the Pro's.  Practically every putting stroke in this game (for good players) is a perfect stroke.  The ones that view this as a game, don't want to see their perfect putts whobble offline.  And I don't think making putting harder is the solution.  Doing so will just make players quit the game.

 

Maybe it is true, that a majority doesn't want a realistic experience (difficulty wise). It doesn't go in my head that a computer game only is fun for a lot of people when they can shoot -10 - but i have to accept it.

 

But even if it's true: That shouldn't hinder or prevent PP to create this realistic experience for those who would like to have it. Call it simulation mode, or just implement it on the hardest difficulty level (Tour Pro). There are 5 difficulty levels already. I really see absolutely no reason for not even ONE level to play as tough as in real life. Everybody who doesn't like it, can choose a lower difficulty level and shoot in the 50ies.

 

I for myself would love the experience to be absolutely challenged to break Par on real courses. And if i succeed playing a better round than the Pros do on the same course in the same week (as we have it often at OGT), it should be an absolute satisfying experience. The short game and the putting is the key to this, no question. Challenge us the same way you do with the long game PP, please. Then the gameplay would be balanced.

[worrybirdie]

Options, options, options.

[gravedodger]

Options, options, options.

Yup, options are great, we all like slight variations here and there, yeay for choice

[IlRaffa65]

Realistic it's my favourite!

[DennisHarris]

This is a game.  And here is why.  JNPG is played on a computer.  Only the players using launch monitors play this game as a sim.  Such players use real clubs to execute each shot with the launch monitor calculating the data.  

Everyone else plays a golf game.  We use a mouse or a controller to make the golf swing.  As much as players want to make this a sim it is ..... just a golf game.  Facts speak for themselves,  How many players who play JNPG hit a golf ball in real life with a Driver 280 yard?  LOL!  Not very many.   This is a game folks. 

 

A damn good golf game.

[JoeF]

This is a game.  And here is why.  JNPG is played on a computer.  Only the players using launch monitors play this game as a sim.  Such players use real clubs to execute each shot with the launch monitor calculating the data.  

Everyone else plays a golf game.  We use a mouse or a controller to make the golf swing.  As much as players want to make this a sim it is ..... just a golf game.  Facts speak for themselves,  How many players who play JNPG hit a golf ball in real life with a Driver 280 yard?  LOL!  Not very many.   This is a game folks. 

 

A damn good golf game.

 

Poppycock.

 

Though I use a mouse rather than a club my approach to JNPG is the same as a round on a real course.  The same thought process is used determining the effect of lie, wind, elevation, fairway/green hardness, positioning, approach angle and green contours on where to aim, shot type, club selection and how hard to swing.  Before swinging the mouse I do the same "settling routine" and have my mouse settings such that the tempo of the swing with the mouse actually "feels" like my real swing.  From my perspective those who play "just a golf game" have missed the true brilliance of JNPG.  I don't play a golf game, I golf on a computer.

[frank70]

Poppycock.

 

Though I use a mouse rather than a club my approach to JNPG is the same as a round on a real course.  The same thought process is used determining the effect of lie, wind, elevation, fairway/green hardness, positioning, approach angle and green contours on where to aim, shot type, club selection and how hard to swing.  Before swinging the mouse I do the same "settling routine" and have my mouse settings such that the tempo of the swing with the mouse actually "feels" like my real swing.  From my perspective those who play "just a golf game" have missed the true brilliance of JNPG.  I don't play a golf game, I golf on a computer.

Great post.

 

But this approach (that i share) is exactly the reason why i would wish some things to be changed. Difficulty of short game, an alternative, not that precise process of green reading, judging the lie not by % numbers on the screen but visually, etc.

 

@Dennis Harris:

 

That all would be doable. It's only a question if we or better the devs want it. The mantra, that realism or better a more or less true simulation of reality isn't possible in a game, is false imo.

 

Most gaming companies are striving to make their game as realistic as possible. And they did come a long way since i am gaming. I remember a game "Larry Bird vs. Dr.J" - a basketball game that i thougt was really great 30 years ago. Now look at NBA2K. No, we aren't there yet. Some things on the court don't play out realistically, often the AI is still a problem. But programming complex artificial intelligence isn't that big of a deal/problem with JNPG. It's "only" the task to implement appropriate physics and penalty values for the different input devices. And PP has come a lon, long way already. Only a few things are missing/lacking.

 

I don't know if the devs do it, but: I sometimes play my round and think with every shot: How would the situation be handled on a real golf course. Which shot is possible, which shot is appropriate and would work in real life. And especially around and on the green there is still room for improvement - but we are almost there. 

[ArcadeHack]

 Before swinging the mouse I do the same "settling routine" and have my mouse settings such that the tempo of the swing with the mouse actually "feels" like my real swing.  

 

 What? Your equating that sitting in your chair and moving a mouse a few inches back and forth gives you the feeling of your actual swing? This means you could grab a club go out into your backyard and swing like you would with your mouse and get the same feeling. Sorry. I call BS on that.

[JoeF]

 What? Your equating that sitting in your chair and moving a mouse a few inches back and forth gives you the feeling of your actual swing? This means you could grab a club go out into your backyard and swing like you would with your mouse and get the same feeling. Sorry. I call BS on that.

 

I play RTS -M-H,  The tempo of my real swing feels the same as the tempo of my mouse swing.  I can feel when my backswing is too fast/slow and can compensate on my downswing just as I can feel when my timing is off in my irl swing.  I can feel when I've swung in/out or out/in.  I can feel the smoothness of the swing and the transition to the downswing.  

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't you use a controller?  Your swing wouldn't feel the same since there is no tempo element.  That's why I went back to a mouse after trying out the controller swing,  I lost the subtle "feel" I had with a mouse.  

[DennisHarris]

I simply say there is no correlation between a mouse swing and a real golf club swing.  Not ever.  So this is a game.  The Folks using real golf clubs are JNPG only Sim players.

 

The best a player with a mouse or controller can do is approach JNPG with their vision of course management.  

 

Greens condition settings of perfect, realistic or bumpy are settings the same as are mouse or controller use.   Options are good.  To say realistic green setting are more life like is a simple judgement.  Which does not make it true or not true.  Funny business, (my phrase) of random unseen grain or spike marks or whatever is the same as invisible branches I  hit on the fairways or approach shot.   Ball flight five feet away from a branch and you get a 80 yard 5 iron. LOL!  Simply not realistic, in this players judgement.     

[Ted_Ball]

RTS-M/H in this sim can be considered, in existentialist terms, to be better than real life. Consider the negatives of real life golf e.g. coming upon a foursome of slow ladies on the tee in front of you. This could also be a positive - but ask yourself what you would prefer: a foursome of ladies or no foursome of ladies. There is a long list of other negatives in real golf. Let's make another thread on that subject.

 

And not only was/is there a similar learning curve to learning the real life swing but also once the action of the swing has been mastered (to an extent) there is a need for regular use to maintain a level of competence. 

 

Of course a 3Clicker or even a controller player won't approach the joy of experiencing the wonder of RTS. They are merely gamers. We RTS brethren have transcended the lesser swing types.

[frank70]

I get that "rhythm-feel" playing RTS-M as well. Of course it is not the same as swinging a real club. But the rhythm with RTS-M is equally import. It's not always there, and i have to correct my angle and my tempo when i sense that something went wrong in my backswing. Most of the times, when this happens i don't produce a quality shot - as in real life.

 

RTS-M is the best control method i have ever played with. Because it doesn't feel mechanical. Although "just" moving a mouse, you have to "feel" the shot. This i cannot say of any other control method. I think overall it is the hardest way to play the game, when we talk about every shot except putting - distance control is really difficult (It's hard to play a, say, 85% shot by just watching the ani. Way easier with 3C or MS). The rather forgiving putting (penalty) evens it out a bit. With hard i mean, that in rounds where the rhythm is off you can struggle big, big time. A ratio of 0.22 on TP sends your ball way off line. And 0.22 can happen easily, when you just don't feel the rhythm.