TW 2005 Intro

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports (More info?)

Break dancin' fat golfers ??? Wtf is that all about ?
Great game, though.
9 answers Last reply
More about 2005 intro
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports (More info?)

    "redTed" <redted@nthelloworld.com> wrote in message
    news:2rln9fF1bfooeU1@uni-berlin.de...
    > Break dancin' fat golfers ??? Wtf is that all about ?
    > Great game, though.
    >

    Same old game, as far as I can see. Worse even, with the odd career mode.

    Links still is way better, especially now with this new "mod" soon to be
    released, which improves the ball physics and difficulty of the game.

    I don't see anything much different in TW this year. I would agree that
    tempo with the TrueSwing plays more of a part in effecting a good swing, but
    besides that the game hasn't changed.

    Give me one-hundred rounds in this game and I'd probably be shooting a 62
    average. It's way too easy, even at expert, tiger-proofing (a dumb idea)
    notwithstanding.

    Alanb
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports (More info?)

    >
    > Same old game, as far as I can see. Worse even, with the odd career mode.
    >
    > Links still is way better, especially now with this new "mod" soon to be
    > released, which improves the ball physics and difficulty of the game.
    >
    > I don't see anything much different in TW this year. I would agree that
    > tempo with the TrueSwing plays more of a part in effecting a good swing,
    > but besides that the game hasn't changed.
    >
    > Give me one-hundred rounds in this game and I'd probably be shooting a 62
    > average. It's way too easy, even at expert, tiger-proofing (a dumb idea)
    > notwithstanding.
    >
    Links is cool. A bit too "static", but I like it.

    What about this bloody intro ,though !!!???
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports (More info?)

    >>
    > Links is cool. A bit too "static", but I like it.
    >
    > What about this bloody intro ,though !!!???
    >

    I haven't seen the intro, sorry. Some of them that I have taken the time to
    view haven't been too bad. I liked the one where Woods is up against a tree
    and has to hit the ball left-handed with a right-handed club.

    Overall the game is well optimized and polished and runs very well on my
    medium machine. I just don't like the feel of the game-- it isn't golf.
    Too easy, virtually no lie effect. The game plays nearly the same no matter
    the conditions. Same stuff, four years removed from the last Links PC
    version.

    Alanb
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports (More info?)

    "Alan Bernardo" <master@oforion.net> wrote in message
    news:Obl5d.157042$3l3.95179@attbi_s03...
    > Give me one-hundred rounds in this game and I'd probably be shooting a 62
    > average. It's way too easy, even at expert, tiger-proofing (a dumb idea)
    > notwithstanding.

    We aren't playing the same game.

    In simulation mode on intermediate I am lucky to get 75. In the career
    mode I'm getting about 70-72 average. It is not a simple game to play,
    unless you are using a straight edge for the mouse swing.

    Yes, those scores aren't as low as what I'm get in Links 2003... so what?
    Tiger Woods 2004 has been a good golf game, nonetheless. If I wanted to
    f*$k up every shot, I'll play real golf...
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports (More info?)

    > If I wanted to f*$k up every shot, I'll play real golf...

    Lol, so very true.
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports (More info?)

    "magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
    news:hJK5d.203429$%n4.17779@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
    >
    > "Alan Bernardo" <master@oforion.net> wrote in message
    > news:Obl5d.157042$3l3.95179@attbi_s03...
    >> Give me one-hundred rounds in this game and I'd probably be shooting a 62
    >> average. It's way too easy, even at expert, tiger-proofing (a dumb idea)
    >> notwithstanding.
    >
    > We aren't playing the same game.
    >
    > In simulation mode on intermediate I am lucky to get 75. In the career
    > mode I'm getting about 70-72 average. It is not a simple game to play,
    > unless you are using a straight edge for the mouse swing.
    >
    > Yes, those scores aren't as low as what I'm get in Links 2003... so what?
    > Tiger Woods 2004 has been a good golf game, nonetheless. If I wanted to
    > f*$k up every shot, I'll play real golf...
    >
    >

    Fair assessment. I just have always preferred Links. TW is fun but I'm
    lookin' for a game that is more true to the sport (or whatever you call it).

    TW comes out every year, and EA wants gamers to fork out another 40 bills
    for what is essentially the same game. A change here or there-- an update,
    if you will: I just can't justify the cost against the benefits.

    Alanb
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports (More info?)

    "Alan Bernardo" <master@oforion.net> wrote in message
    news:wSZ5d.269781$mD.200771@attbi_s02...
    > TW comes out every year, and EA wants gamers to fork out another 40 bills
    > for what is essentially the same game. A change here or there-- an
    update,
    > if you will: I just can't justify the cost against the benefits.
    >

    That's why I haven't bought it yet. I'm looking to try and find out what
    exactly has changed before I part with 40 dollars.

    EA has the wrong idea about golf games; they aren't just another sports
    games. I would think roster updates don't matter too much to people who
    play golf games, so unless the game is actually better, it's not going to
    sell.
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports (More info?)

    On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 13:32:41 -0400, "magnulus"
    <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote:

    > EA has the wrong idea about golf games; they aren't just another sports
    >games. I would think roster updates don't matter too much to people who
    >play golf games, so unless the game is actually better, it's not going to
    >sell.

    Actually I think golf games are easier to sell without major
    improvements, usually they come with different courses so after a year
    of playing one set of courses to death a customer would probably like
    a new set of courses even without a major update in the game. I
    usually get every other years EA sports games, usually when the
    graphics engine has been updated.
    --
    Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
    Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
    please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
    Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports (More info?)

    "Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in message
    news:488jl013knj22tq40fd57j6llv95t4k6fb@4ax.com...
    > Actually I think golf games are easier to sell without major
    > improvements, usually they come with different courses so after a year
    > of playing one set of courses to death a customer would probably like
    > a new set of courses even without a major update in the game. I
    > usually get every other years EA sports games, usually when the
    > graphics engine has been updated.

    That's usually what the course editors and fan community are for.

    Although, Links is much better in this respect. The editor is alot harder
    to use that TW, but the courses are easier to package. With Tiger Woods,
    there is a confusing mess of libraries a person has to install to put in
    custom content. The majority of people are going to want to play custom
    courses, not build them, so that makes Links better for custom content.
Ask a new question

Read More

PC gaming Games IBM Video Games