We've seen the debates throughout the forums about the lack of realism in the TW games, and how this game more resembles true golf etc. I think that with the advent of TW online competing with WGT, the time has come to really assess the fundamental questions regarding why we would choose one over the other.
Yes, we all know how the TW game has had some pretty silly features added to it in the past, where character development took place to such a degree that you could hit 350+ drives all the time and score in the low 50's every round. The console game was even worse, with the player being able to control the spin and flight of the ball in mid-air etc. I think we're all in agreement that no one really wants those kind of features in a game deemed "most realistic".
What is "most realistic", however? Is it simply about having HD photos as your course rather than a computer generated course based on the same thing? I would say no, realism in a golf game is mostly about the physics engine, and how well the ability to play a shot in the digital realm compared to the real game of golf.
As we take a closer look at this "realism", you'll find that what we deal with here is not very realistic either. For instance, take a look at your club distances for starters. The only things that these clubs 'realistically' resemble is Junior golf, at best. Also, look at the scores of the top players. Think about all the golfers you have ever played with in real life. Do you know any golfers who hit with these distances, with clubs that have no spin, that don't draw or fade the ball into particular hole positions, and shoot low 60's on a Professional course from the Blue tees? Of course you don't. In order to shoot in the low 60's, a real golfer needs all of those capabilities of superior equipment and skill, and there are very few in the world who can accomplish that. Case in point: The real course record for Bethpage Black is 64. I shot that very score on my first day of qualifying, with the Tour Starter set and a driver that is rated 240 yds. In reality, anyone shooting with those kind of clubs and distances would shoot a number twice that amount on the Black!
So, we're not really talking about a "realistic" game here either. What we currently play is Junior-level, links-style golf on non-links courses. The scores and stats aren't realistic, the distances of the clubs aren't realistic....all that's "real" are the beautiful images in HD we are fortunate to play on as a backdrop. The proprietary physics engine that this game utilizes is actually great, but it's greatness is diminished by the addition of large deviations to your shot, making it so that even when you hit the "Excellent!" line, you are still wondering if your ball is going to end up anywhere near where you aimed it.
So, now we've come down to the crux of the issue. If the club distances aren't realistic, the scores and stats aren't realistic, and the random deviations off the perfect line aren't realistic, then all we're left with are the great HD photographs of the real course. That's simply not enough to justify any purist's argument that this game is "more real" than TW.
Some may say, "Well, golf isn't a science, you shouldn't be able to measure up every shot so precisely". You couldn't be more wrong. In the real game, you've got GPS units that map out every square inch of the course, and at the Pro level, those guys know exactly how much club to use and what to expect out of each of their shots. The pin placements and greens at that level are so incredibly difficult... it's only due to those players having charted shot after shot for many hours a day over the course of many years that they can execute any of those shots you see on TV with such precision. They chart every motion of their swing, every nuance of ball positioning, heck, there isn't one thing that a professional golfer doesn't chart. That's science folks, like it or not.
There is a science behind programming the physics of every shot you take here, too. The reason it seems so close to real here is that the physics engine being used does a great job of figuring trajectory, spin, arc, speed etc. and rendering it into what you see as your shot. If that's not a science, I don't know what is. We're playing a video game, you don't have the club in your hands, there's nothing to "feel" in this realm...other than your heart racing as you try for a crucial putt, or your emotions getting out of control when you make or miss it! That's what WGT does a great job at, and for that I applaud them.
Where is this all going? Well, we have to decide what we're here for in the first place. This is a game, so I guess we're here to have fun, first and foremost. Right now, this game isn't all that much fun for me. Personally, I've taken 'my game' to as good as a level as it can possibly get within the boundaries of the system in place. Honestly, the only things that really stop me these days are random deviations that leave my ball 20 ft from the hole as opposed to 5ft. They are things that are out of my control, and after playing this game as much as I have, it's a never-ending source of frustration to know that even when I perform and execute well, my fate really isn't in my hands all that much. That, to me, isn't fun. If I wanted that kind of game and experience, I'd play the lottery. Think about every other computer game you've ever played, and add whatever the equivalent of a 'random deviation' would be into that game, and ask yourself if that game would have been as much fun for you as it was. My guess is, not.
WGT is going to have to take a long, hard look at it's strategy from here on in, since it's going to have some competition in the online realm. People are going to have a choice as to which they play. Comb through these forums and you'll see numerous mentions of the displeasure with the club distances, with the "Beast" (if you've been around awhile, you'll know what I mean by that), with putts that drift opposite of how they read etc. Are the HD photos enough realism to keep people here if they have a choice? Given the choice of having a shot go very near where it's aimed on a decent CGI simulation , or having it drift 7 yards left for no reason on a 95 yard shot after they just hit the "Excellent!" line on beautiful HD photos, which do you think they'll choose?
Think about it.