Curious what folks would think about this. As some of you may have seen, I'm getting close to releasing a course that is my own expansion of a real course I played growing up. I justify this as an enhancing architectural effort that they should totally spend millions of dollars to do. Others may consider it an abomination and destruction of a perfectly good 100-year-old design by a world-renowned golf course architect.
But I want to get a sense here. There are some other courses (both fictional and real) I'd love to have Links 1.07 playable versions of: Autumn Vally, Devils Lake South, Liberty South (all unlocked) and on the real side: Merion & Kiawah Island most notably that I'd love to rennovate... BUT I'm not sure I could fully keep my hands off the design without enhancing them.
I don't see any reason not to make minor changes - with the designers permission if the designer can be found - like adding a few more pin positions. If the designer can't be found and corrections are needed, the option to rename the course and release it as fictional should be posted as a thread to get a general consensus from the Links public as to whether or not it should be done.
The expansion of a real course you mentioned - if it doesn't already exist in Links I say go for it! Look at many of John Brooks' courses. He got the basic layout of great courses and then threw together some bushes and trees and stuff and released them. Most of the ones that I've seen are not even recognizable as the course that is named.
I tried to decide on what to vote for but didnt manage, because I think its not as clear as a simple and straight yes or no, in my opinion it comes down to a lot of factors per individual case. Mainly, what type of changes? how big are they in total? are there perhaps good reasons for doing them that everyone or at least most people could agree with? Is it possible to reach the original designer? Have at least attempts been made? Are there any indications that the designer in question was open-minded to such things?
1st one: I dont see why anyone should object to changes if you have the blessing of the original designer.
2nd: I think there would have to be really rather good reasons for doing this, but I personally dont think it's necessarily always a no. For example what if you're just fixing an issue that makes some people unable to play the course at all because of some crash or something? Im guessing your question is probably more about altering the layout based on subjective views on what makes a better golf course right? I would personally stay away from it but as long as attempts have been made to reach the original designer, and its made with an attempt to still show as much respect as possible to them then I wouldnt hate on anyone for doing it either. I think what Pete says about trying to get the community behind the changes beforehand would be a really good thing.
3rd/4th: To me it depends entirely on what type of changes. For example are you including a fictional tee further back to make an easy course more interesting, that players can just ignore and play on other tees if they dont agree with that kind of thing, then that isnt so bad. Perhaps this isnt the best example but what if you were to add a tee further back on Augusta 13th, something they are considering doing that in real life too. Would that really be so horrendous? Maybe to some, but not to me. In the case of your Harrisburg you added a bunker for example right? I dont see why anyone should care since if not for you, the course wouldnt be playable at all in Links anyway... In that type of case where the course otherwise doesnt exist, let the designer have a little freedom, but yeah thats just my opinion. Personally as a player I think its nice when other designers spice things up to make a course play more interesting in Links if its done with good judgment, but I still dont like if too much is changed.
Finished Courses - Main: Amedal (fictional), Nine Bridges (real)
Other: Austin, Sheshan, Kauri Cliffs, Le Golf Nat. Updates: Whirlpool, Royal Lytham, Royal St George's, Chicago, Chambers Bay, Munchen Nord E
Working on: 2 fictional courses + a couple things...
Also, to avoid being mistaken for a hypocrite either now or in the future: if I choose not to change certain things when I update courses, that doesnt necessarily mean Im against such changes being made in all cases. For example I didnt want to change things about Whirlpool even when I had permission to make own decisions, that alone doesnt mean I think others should make the same choices as I made about anything. And if I update other courses in the future and have freedom to make own choices, I may make different decisions based on what I think is appropriate case-by-case (and what I have the will/energy for).
Finished Courses - Main: Amedal (fictional), Nine Bridges (real)
Other: Austin, Sheshan, Kauri Cliffs, Le Golf Nat. Updates: Whirlpool, Royal Lytham, Royal St George's, Chicago, Chambers Bay, Munchen Nord E
Working on: 2 fictional courses + a couple things...
It wasn't clear what you meant by "Course Renovation", so in the case of the real course options I checked them on the assumption that the real courses had been renovated/redesigned at some point or points over the years. Essentially, the Links versions need to be updated to the current design.
I always wanted to write something intelligent in my signature. Now that I think about it, I guess I just did!
