🚀 go-pugleaf

Walt,

Sorry about the XP thing.  I guess I got the name wrong.  :)



> I have no problem with MS. Monopoly or not, if Gates wasn't around to
> forcefully standardize things, computers would be a thousand times more
> intricate in their configurations and gaming would be nearly out of the
> question .. or at the very least .. even more problematic.
>

This is good to hear.  These days you see so many users who aren't able to
look beyond the MS domination and see a game or other piece of software for
what it is.

> No .. my point was that The King is Dead. Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2003 blows
> Links 2003 in to another dimension ... like an 8-bit Nintendo game vs.
> Unreal Tournament or something.
>

Graphically, maybe.  As far as gameplay goes, I just don't see it.  LS 2003
still is way ahead of TW 2003 when it comes to gameplay and realism.
Graphically, I'm not overly impressed with TW 2003.  All that glitz goes
unnoticed after a while, and you're left with how the game plays compared to
the real game of golf.  When that happens, LS 2003 wins easily, IMO.

Plus, TW 2003 is a system's hog.  Here I have a 2.4 ghz with an 18" Flat
Screeen and when I try to run TW 2003 with all the settings on high, my
frames are quite jerky for my standards.

>From an animations standpoint, MS' are better.  EA has had years to perfect
their animations and on the first try MS' are better.

Also, TW 2003's real-time swing is way too easy, even at Masters' level.
MS' real-time swing wins out again, barely though.  I played LS 2003's RTS
for a while but inconsistent long-iron speeds and the fact that edging is
way too easy brought me back to the PS method.

To me, TW 2003 is just not golf.  First, it's too easy.  Second, any golf
game where all you have to do is wing it is not the kind of golf game I'm
looking for.  If you consider that in the real game of golf the weather and
the lie have an enormous affect on scores, and then consider that in TW 2003
these two factors are non-factors, then I can't see how anyone could take TW
2003 over LS 2003.

> It's not even close.
>
> In fact, the Links team should be embarrassed, ridiculed and then
summarily
> fired. This was the king of all golf franchises and they've rode a 1997
> engine for 6 years. Reminds me of GM in the 80's and early 90's. Same damn
> car, year after year.
>
> Then, checking Links Forums all over the place and the problems people are
> having with this antiquated engine and .. therein lies my point.

EA has revamped its engine?  What's the sense of a new engine when the one
being used is excellent?  I think if you look at the 1997 game and then
compare it to the 2003 game, you'll see things have changed.

As to the "problems with this antiquated engine", what problems specifically
are you speaking of?  I have yet to see one person, who prefers TW 2003 over
LS 2003 give me any "valid" reason why they think the way they think, other
than TW 2003 is graphically better.

I'd just like to see a list, enumerated.  Then we can argue which game is
better.  Such comments as "it's not even close" just aren't good enough.

So, anyone-- let's have some reasons here-- valid and specific enough.

Alanb
> --
> "It was the way we had over here of living with ourselves. We'd cut them
in
> half with a machine gun and give them a bandaid. It was a lie, and the
more
> I saw of them, the more I hated lies."
>
>
>