Today I shifted focus from my usual design work to explore a different career path by trying out TPC Deere Run. I noticed that the official courses seem to be assembled without much care. Is it common for every official course to appear so improvised? The placement of elements on this course, for instance the planting, appears rather random, especially when compared to the thoughtfully crafted designs seen in user-created courses.
I have observed that official courses tend to have a standardized layout which results from trying to balance functional design with a broad audience appeal. In my experience, these courses are often intended to serve as basic templates rather than as works of detailed design, so they may seem less refined compared to user-created courses. This approach likely stems from prioritizing consistency and ease of navigation over creative placement, making them appear improvised when compared to the well-planned structures found in community submissions.
Hey everyone, Luke87, I see where you’re coming from. I’ve always thought that sometimes these official courses have a kind of ‘bare-bones’ vibe on purpose, you know? It feels like they’re meant to be a jumping-off point rather than a finished masterpiece. I mean, official courses often offer a base layout that you can really tweak to your liking, which might be why the design seems a bit off-kilter compared to the polished user creations. Has anyone else tried giving these courses a bit of their own spin? I’m curious about how you feel this flexibility might actually encourage more creative designs in the long run. What do you think about this approach?
yeah, official courses r more like basic frameworks than finished artworks. they keep it generic so users can add their own flare. it might look random, but that seems to be the idea behind it