|
Wolves Lair Final
by Graham Hardy
| Links Corner Course Database ID Number - 947 |
Release Date |
CRZ Filesize |
Par |
Course Length |
| 2002-06-26 |
50,380,509 bytes |
73 |
7761 yards |
| Type |
Style |
CRZ Filename |
|
FICTIONAL |
MOUNTAIN |
Wolves Lair Final.CRZ.crz |
| Course ID |
Course Key |
| 285379d0cf1b4bcbb92af5d9495173af |
6e43ade4866907ca7657877ec21a335a |
|
LINKS CORNER REVIEW |
Reviewed by
Mike Nifong
July 2002
Course type: Wolves (should it not be Wolves'?) Lair is a mountain-style course with an autumn pano (the same one used on Coal Creek Canyon, which I also recently reviewed). Graham does not specify whether he considers this course to be fictional or imaginary; like its predecessor Steelheads Country Club (which he considered imaginary), it has some characteristics of each. On balance, I would place it in the fictional category, but a reasonable argument could be made otherwise.
Historical perspective: Wolves Lair is Graham's third course, following the tepidly received Golf Manor Estate in October 2001 and the more enthusiastically welcomed Steelheads Country Club in November 2001 (to which I gave an official review score of 88 and the users gave three stars). At 47.4MB, Wolves Lair, which was released in its current (and announced to be last) version on June 26, 2002, is by far the largest of the three. As of this writing, it is also the most popular with the users, having achieved a 4-star rating from 14 reviewers.
Wolves Lair apparently underwent several revisions, including redesign of several holes and recontouring of some greens, following an open beta release. Sadly, that process seems to have taken its toll. In a surprising (at least to me) post in the Wire LS forum made at the time of its release, Graham stated that he had in effect reached the end of his rope with the APCD, that Wolves Lair would be his final course, and that 'though it really is not finished yet, I really don't have the energy left to do any more work on it. there are areas of the course which would look better with some attention, but I did not see the need as they do not interfere with the playability of the course.' While these factors must of necessity be taken into account in the review process, my comments, being informed by this knowledge, also take on a different slant than otherwise might be the case.
What is included: By today's standard, less than the minimum, which would be surprising in isolation given the fact that the file size is roughly 50% larger than the current average, but is rendered much less so by Graham's apparent disenchantment with the design process. The mandatory cameo and splash screens (all featuring, not surprisingly, Canis lupus) are here, but that is about it: no read-me, no hole previews, and a curiously anemic tournament option (if you can even call it that) that plants a few people in a few places but leaves the majority of the course unoccupied save for the golfers.
Technical merit:
There are a few mesh shadows, primarily in the texture boundaries of the fairways, but none of them are significantly distracting, with the exception of those visible along the side of the bridge near the green on #13 (which, incidentally, is not only unattractive but also absolutely unnecessary, as its absence would only require the golfers to walk a few extra yards). There are also several places where the texture transitions are much too abrupt, such as that between the rock face and the grassy bank on #13. There are also a few more straight edges than I have been accustomed to seeing of late, but they are apparent primarily in the top view and the dynamic cam view and, again, not a significant distraction. True to Graham's declaration, none of these items have any effect whatsoever on the playability of the course.
Artistic achievement:
When I first played Wolves Lair, I was struck by the sensation that it was not quite finished: some holes were absolutely lovely, while others looked like they could use some extra work. Of course, as we all now know, that turned out to be precisely the case. The result is that the course looks quite stunning in some views, but rather plain - even nondescript - in others.
The tee areas are a good example of the lack of continuity in the course. Mostly, they consist of an acceptable mixture of rounded individual boxes on some holes and runway-style single boxes on others, but #18 looks like it came from a different course, with its elevated, elongated hexagon-shaped boxes surrounded by walls of square gray stone (not scaled particularly well, either). And while some of the tee boxes are pleasingly simple in their decoration, others are so cluttered with objects (flowers, ball washers, trash baskets, benches, buildings, etc.) that they constitute an actual distraction; #1 is probably the best (or is it worst?) example of this. Then there is the cart path (one of the features that tips the balance toward consideration of the course as a fictional venue), which is very thoughtfully laid out for the first few holes, disappears on #5, then makes a return for several more holes before eventually petering out altogether.
Before you get the idea that Wolves Lair is a visual calamity, however, let me assure you that it is not. Some things are done exceptionally well. The planting is, for the most part, close to perfect. Not only are the variety and the density right on the mark, but Graham has wisely let the pano supply the autumn colors, leaving almost all of the trees along the fairways green. This is exactly what would be expected in a real course, where the colors change first at the higher altitudes, and it is a refreshing change from the often overwhelmingly colorful autumn courses that are often seen.
Bunkers are generally quite good: smooth and consistent, with nice and even dirt lips. My only complaint here is the decision to run the mow lines right to the sand on many of the fairway (e.g., #8, #9, #17) and greenside (e.g., #4, #5, #10, #14, #18) placements. Presumably the intent was to make some shots run into the bunkers (and at that it is quite effective), but realism would have suffered much less if Graham had used a fairway texture devoid of mow lines for their immediate surrounds. While we are on the subject of textures, I would say that they seem to be well chosen and to work nicely together, but there are some places where the transitions could have used more finesse.
Water edge treatments vary in success. For the most part, those that do not have either wooden or stone retaining walls are disappointing. This is especially true of the streams, which would have looked much better with some planting along the banks. The absolutely lovely treatment given to the water in front of the green on #17 makes it clear that this failing falls into the category of things not reached.
Play value:
At 7761 yards, Wolves Lair is a long course, although some holes play a little shorter than their nominal length due to the elevation changes. Three of the four par-3's are longer than 200 yards, and two of the par-4's are almost 500 yards. Still, two of the par-5's (#5 and #18) are reachable; #15 can be as well under favorable wind conditions, but the layout of the hole makes a 3W off the tee a better choice. The length comes into play primarily on the second shot: if you are going to be successful, you will need to be taking it from the fairway. And therein lies the rub. Actually, the rough is not too punishing. Much of it has light rough properties - still a potential problem if you have to hold a green, but nothing like, for example, Bethpage Black. But you absolutely must avoid the bunkers, the trees, and the water, all of which have been placed for maximum effect. Since many of these obstacles are not visible from the tee, and since there are no hole previews, you just about have no choice other than to use the top view.
The fairway bunkers are surprisingly deep, much more so than their large size makes them appear. Moreover, if you run the ball into one (as opposed to landing it on the fly), there is a very good chance that it will come to rest on a severe side slope; if this happens, your extraction shot will likely be with a very lofted club, and your only reasonable hope is that you will land in the short grass to set up a lengthy third shot. Trees also must be approached with care, sometimes off the tee (there are a few holes on which they will surprise you), more often when your tee shot fails to find the fairway. With the exception of #10, which requires a blind tee shot and a 250-yard carry to a semi-peninsular landing area, water is not really in play off the tee, but it features prominently in many second shots. (On #10, you can avoid the water by fading a 3W to the fairway on #18, which is below and to the right of the tee, leaving a 2I/5W over the trees to the green; this second shot, however, will be longer than if you play the hole as it is laid out, and it brings the greenside bunker into play, so it is really a pick-your-poison situation.)
The greens, when set to moderate/medium conditions, seem to present close to an ideal balance between fairness and challenge for the pro clicker. If that assessment seems a little ominous, it is. These same greens (which tend to be large and irregularly shaped, so that a bunker or a finger of rough can intrude between your lie and the pin) become frustratingly slick under firm/fast conditions, with dire consequences for both your putts and your approach shots; the latter all too often fail to hold, continuing on into the rough (if you are lucky), the sand, or the water.
The results obtained by the computer foursome (Garcia, Stadler, Clearwater and Palmer) are instructive. Under b/m/m/m conditions, they were a combined -28 (-3 to -11), hitting 71% of the fairways (57-78%) and 76% of the greens (61-100%); this is a little worse than the average, but still in the ballpark. Playing under w/f/f/d conditions, however, really brings out the Jekyll/Hyde nature of this course: the computer players were a disastrous +10 (-2 to +5), hitting only 59% of the fairways (50-75%) and 57% of the greens (44-66%); the combined score is the worst I have recorded, and the percentages were lower only on Bethpage Black. (For some reason, the computer golfers had trouble with two of the holes regardless of conditions. On #2, they all aimed for the rough next to the rock wall and water down the left side of the fairway, needlessly flirting with the water when a much better lie and the same angle were available from the fairway. On #15, they aimed their second shots at the water hazard well right of the green; six of the eight shots were saved from the water only because they hit the trees and dropped into the rough; the other two found the water - and double bogeys.) My experience was comparable, and I cannot recommend the more difficult conditions to anyone not seeking maximum challenge and frustration.
The bottom line: 'A mostly attractive and well-finished course that falls ever so slightly short in a few areas, primarily involving its realism. A good challenge for pro clickers, Wolves Lair seems occasionally indecipherable to the computer golfers and, in all but the most benign of conditions, is probably too tough a challenge to provide much enjoyment for players at the more difficult levels.'
At least that was going to be my bottom line before I learned that Graham's current intent is to retire from designing courses for us to play. That fact casts a whole different light on this endeavor. So, while Wolves Lair is not my favorite Graham Hardy course (that honor remains with Steelheads), I urge you to give it a look - Steelheads too, if you have not already done so. And if you like it (or them), I further urge you to let Graham know by posting your comments in the Review Forum and/or your evaluations in the user reviews. Who knows? Maybe he will reconsider.
Course statistics: Par 73; 5 sets of tees; 7761 yards from back tees; holes are not handicapped. |
|
CLIPNOTES by Ben Bateson (ousgg) |
Description
Fictional, mountain course |
Location
TBA |
Conditions
TBA |
Concept 4/10
Reminiscent of Devil's Lake in terms of panorama, planting and sheer
mammoth scale, Wolves Lair (surely an apostrophe missing?) plays fast
and loose with elevations and water hazards. Under the guise of a testing
and unusual course structure, the designer has pushed his luck a little bit
too far; Wolves Lair is just a bit too intimidating to be a welcome
environment and too preposterous to be the home of good golf. The 18th is
a pushover and, in yielding my only sub-par score of the round (an Eagle,
moreover), left me feeling distinctly underwhelmed. |
Appearance 4/10
Big courses generally tend to have big views. Somehow, Wolves Lair seems to have sidestepped these. Sure, the panorama's pretty
and looks great from the elevated tees. But the planting is overwrought in the forests and notably underdone where grasses should be.
The textures don't particularly fit together. There is a lack of visual candy such as a clubhouse environment or 2D extras. I could go on;
suffice to say this doesn't work for me. |
Playability 4/10
The course's length is depressing, and many tee shots have difficulties in that they are semi-blind or sharply dog-legged. On one hole,
I couldn't see the fairway from the tee, and once I hit the fairway, I couldn't see the green. The rendering times are inordinately long for
such an early course, thanks to the landscape being crammed. The main gameplay gimmick at Wolves Lair relies on pinpoint
approach shots across water to steep elevations, and after the fifth time you've done - or failed - this, it just becomes naught. |
Challenge 3/10
Don't expect birdies. The course is long, steeply elevated at the wrong times, and water hazards both overt and hidden will dog your
path. Enormous greens mean that two-putts are not necessarily assured, although the gradients aren't as bad as some others I could
mention. The 18th is the only one of the Par 5s that yields a realistic 2-shot approach, and as such isn't the best climax to your round.
Very disappointing. |
Technical 5/10
The course isn't badly put together, and there are no glaring technical errors. What is really at fault here is lack of appreciation of what
makes a good golf course, and perhaps a little scale down - literally as well as with the designer's ambitions. |
| Overall |
A bit like Chuck Norris: big, difficult, cold and unrealistic. |
20/50 |
Please remember that Clipnote reviews are the opinion of one person and do not constitute an 'Official' Links Corner review of the course. |
This course is available as a FREE download.
|
|
Download course
|
Please support Links Corner
|
|
|
