Links 2004 Review

By Tom Bramwell Published 3 December, 2003

Like Tiger Woods, with online options. Got to be great. Right?

Version tested: Xbox

When you think of Links games, you tend to think of lush but static backgrounds, immensely detailed physics and a control system that rewards precision above all else. Golfer's golf games, if you like. Tiger Woods, on the other hand, is best known these days for its analogue swing, preposterously unrealistic courses, forgiving controls and physics and its devotion to fun rather than authenticity. Unsurprisingly, ever since EA went down this route instead of trying to mimic Links, the series has struck something of a chord with the rest of the world - the folks to whom three clicks does not represent the swing of a golf club and bonuses for striking the pin or chipping in direct from a bunker are significant draws.

Chip and change

'Links 2004' Screenshot 1

So, as the developer of the world's longest running golf series, how do you respond to the peasants climbing over one another to get hold of EA's more comfortable alternative? That's easy, right? You just borrow the analogue swing idea - after all, EA's pinched enough from Links over the years - and give us a choice between click-click-swing and tug-thrust-wheee, then release it all on a console. You get both sets of fans interested and, because you're not colossally stupid, you also make it the only golf game to support multiplayer over broadband on a console. Hey presto, you've just beaten EA. If it sounds like a good idea that's because, well, it is. Or rather it would have been.

But in fact despite having finely tuned its three-click system for longer than most of us have had computers (or adult teeth), the development team behind Links 2004 has apparently now given up and cut it out completely, instead preferring to surrender to EA's mass market know-how and deliver an analogue swing system - and in fact overall control scheme - that borrows heavily without giving anything back. And despite borrowing heavily, it clearly hasn't been paying close enough attention, because I'd still rather be playing Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2004.

To be fair to Links though, a lot of what I'd rather be doing is down to EA's all-consuming obsession with presentation. Links 2004 has a Career mode with a simple character customisation screen (with a few new ball colours, club shafts and other items to unlock, some of which improve statistics), a series of tournaments, mini-championships and challenges (mostly to do with landing a series of balls in specific spots or completing Par 3 courses in a certain number of swings), a separate Challenge mode (with even more of these sorts of tasks), online play, a basic exhibition-style single round option and nine courses in total. A decent complement, no question, and it'll take you some time to put paid to every last hole and take your rather arbitrary world ranking up to No.1 (side note: what happened to Gotham 2-style world rankings over Xbox Live?), but then you come to consider Tiger's offering...

Wooden

'Links 2004' Screenshot 2

Master Woods' 2004 outing has all that plus an expansive shop full of desirable items (with 'desirable' the operative word here), about three times the number of individual stats to upgrade, god knows how many more courses (including Tiger's ridiculous Dream 18 and various other fictional locations), real golfers and 'character' golfers (Links has neither) and one of the most engaging, balanced and consistently rewarding gameplay mechanics in any sports game.

It also has trophy balls and real-time challenges that sync up in-game competitions to fit real-life (and a few fictional) events, and let's not forget that it's incredibly easy on the eye and one of the few sports games we've ever encountered which has passable, in fact, sod that, genuinely decent commentary. We never turned it off. Compare and contrast with Links 2004 and it's a bit depressing - Links has virtually no incentives or bonuses other than overall victory, all-round awful audio (including classic cut-and-paste commentary that grates your very eardrums after a while and simply must be turned off, coupled with infuriatingly non-stop clapping from spectators and one of the most badly-judged soundtracks ever) and less of a sense of fun. It's a serious person's golf game masquerading as a dumbed down console competitor for Tiger Woods. What a sorry state of affairs.

On a single-player level at least, then, Tiger Woods definitely has the edge. Stuck on my own with a thirst for golf, I would pick Tiger first. But as I've moaned time and time again since I got my glove round Tiger Woods 2004, EA's decision to favour PS2 Online over Xbox Live - and, in the case of the golfing series, America over Europe - means that I simply can't pick up a pad and headset and play a few rounds with my old flatmate, or anybody else for that matter. If Tiger had debuted with Xbox Live support (and a custom soundtrack option, actually), this would be a much shorter review, mainly focusing on interesting alternatives for your £40 (remote control Mario Kart toys, for example, or obscure real ales).

Live golf is the key

'Links 2004' Screenshot 3

However, with the advent of Xbox Live, Links 2004 takes on greater significance. Although in terms of content it falls someway short of its main rival, the option to pick up a pad and lock shafts with a huge range of real people is a real selling point (and, as with most Xbox Live titles, there are a surprisingly large number of people playing it already). All the usual options are there - Optimatch, Quick Match, Download Content (none yet), etc - and the developer has even included a few multiplayer-specific game modes to complement the obvious stroke play, match play and skins options. These fast golf options don't leave you at the mercy of the other player's time-wasting, allowing you to tee off in tandem and compare scorecards instead.

Thoughtfully, the developer has also placed a sort of shot clock on the standard modes, so you'll never find yourself blanked by a losing opponent who wants you to quit the match so you look bad and the result won't stand. It's also extremely smooth (which seems to be a pre-requisite for Xbox Live titles) even with a handful of players on the same server. That said though, I did suffer a couple of hard locks when hooked into somebody else's game, so it was hardly a hole-in-one experience. More like a birdie. From the bunker.

Then again I did say it was mostly Tiger's depth of content and presentation that excited me. Sadly, the rest of the reason I prefer Tiger is that it feels smoother and more precise to play. Which is amazing given the fluffiness of some of the putting in Tiger, and the camera's apparent refusal to balance the game by giving everyone the same view of the ball in flight...

Link to the past... please!

It's not that Links' analogue swing system isn't intuitive, or that the series' long held obsession with simulation has rendered it impossible to pick up - if anything it's quite the opposite. Links is just too... easy. Even on the supposedly tougher difficultly levels it's not all that hard to mash through each hole on autopilot and still save a stroke. And that's with a severely undeveloped character with middling stats and basic kit. When you fail, it feels more like the game is punishing you - a shot goes astray off the tee, for example, when you feel sure you played the stick forward at no more of an angle than on any previous occasion, or you match the blue guiding line on the putting surface to a perfectly weighted shot and the ball still rolls short on the incline.

Taken in isolation, Links 2004 is a good game. It's easy to pick up, it has some seriously challenging courses and plenty of things for the single and especially the Live-connected gamer to do. It looks great - with some of the most impressive texture detail on the Xbox (even if the character models all have peculiarly vast Baboon-sized rear ends) - and it captures the essence of the sport even if it lacks the official trimmings. However compared to Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2004, Links 2004 comes off second best. Tiger is accessible enough that you'll happily be able to find someone locally to play the game with you in front of your TV, it has enough content to keep you going for weeks - and so many little bits and pieces to unlock or uncover that you could be happily playing it when the 2005 version inevitably pitches up next October.

It might seem a little harsh to spend most of the review talking about another game, but, to play Links 2004 after playing one of the previous versions, it certainly feels like Microsoft spent most of the development period talking about Tiger Woods. If you absolutely must have online golf, then you haven't really any other option than to pick up Links, and you're unlikely to find yourself too disappointed. You could even argue that it exceeds its copy and paste mandate with a more manageable camera, and there will be some who prefer its more realistic putting system. But however good a game this may be, it's still left falling off the shoulders of a true giant, and even without online play and custom soundtrack options Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2004 still hits the clubhouse well ahead of its rival.

7 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
Picture of Tom.

About Tom Bramwell

Tom is Operations director of Eurogamer Network and Editor-at-Large of Eurogamer.net. He joined the company in February 2000.

Read more articles from Tom by visiting the Tom Bramwell archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (31) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • WriterUK #1 8 years ago

    Oooh... disagreeing with Penny Arcade. Controversial.

    This is where I say 'first', I think.

  • ssuellid #2 8 years ago

    Last golf game I really enjoyed was on the Megadrive - PGA something IIRC. Tiger woods just didn't work for me as my thumb has a nasty habit of pausing and cracking whilst attempting to swing the club.

  • Dizzy #3 8 years ago

    Yes... and disagreeing with me! ;)

    Links is much better than Tiger IMHO but I guess this just shows that people want their golf-games to have a certain "play-style". I would suggest at least trying both if you want to buy a game. Links is my favourite by far. With Live, the decision is easily made. Penny Arcade is right this time! ;)

    Eurogamer should really deduct points for the weak online play in Tiger and the treatment of Europe. The European version of Tiger cannot be reviewed as a US version. EA should get hammered for releasing a lesser (online) version in Europe.

  • Mugwum Verified Operations Director, Eurogamer Network #4 8 years ago

    "Eurogamer should really deducts points for the weak online play in Tiger and the treatment of Europe."

    We did...

  • renzo #5 8 years ago

    Another Xbox 'killer app', as someone said in another thread.

  • HyZepher #6 8 years ago

    For the most part Links 2004 seems to be more of a kick in the teeth from MS to EA than an attempt to be a game in its own right. It seems as if MS have risen to EA and decided that they are bold enough to eat into EA's profits if they continue to resist Live.

    TW2004 may be a better overall game in terms of options etc. but Links has one major advantage - its Live. All the issues surrounding the single player mode are forgotten when you have just eagled the last to stuff some Yank on the 18th or when you have set up and competed in a private tournament with your friends.

    MS are pushing Live to the limit and Links is the perfect weapon - for most people playing golf by themselves is just not rewarding and Links provides us all with an option to show off to the whole world.

    EA are currently shaking in their boots - MS have come up with some great online titles that compete with anything EA have come up with. The EA/Live issue I feel is close to being resolved and Links will play a major part in winning EA around.

    If not, a semi-successful MS soccer game on Live could start to put a few nails in the EA coffin

    Hyzepher

  • Cyhwuhx #7 8 years ago

    .::: People still thinking that online is the Holy Grail of Gaming scare me...

  • HyZepher #8 8 years ago

    ".::: People still thinking that online is the Holy Grail of Gaming scare me... "

    I think that you will find that online play is increasingly becoming an important factor for people when purchasing. It may not be as important as the gameplay itself but people are looking for that added value from a game and online play gives that to them. You only have to look at the amount of people playing Links online already and the game is only 1 week released.

    I do believe that when it come to the Xbox EA are falling behind every day that they snub Live. With the increasing interest in online play and the inept PS2 offering at the moment, EA might be pushing themselves out of a very large market.

    I think time will show that Links will out sell and out live TW2004 and it will be the online option that does it

    HyZepher

  • renzo #9 8 years ago

    "If not, a semi-successful MS soccer game on Live could start to put a few nails in the EA coffin"

    bwahahahaha!!!

    Funniest post I've read all day.

  • Tricky #10 8 years ago

    So much of EA's output is too PS2-centric. Never mind just the online options but what about the graphics options too? Look at SSX3 for example; on PS2 you have widescreen support but on the other versions you get just plain old 4:3. I mean, wtf is that all about?

  • Blerk #11 8 years ago

    Don't worry, Cyhwuhx - you're not alone. I have absolutely zero interest in playing online.

  • MaTTy_P #12 8 years ago

    its all well and good reviewing this. But where are the xbox/gr prize draw results?

  • Tiger_Walts #13 8 years ago

    Hehe, MS should get Codemasters to produce a Live enabled port of Sensible Soccer!

  • HyZepher #14 8 years ago

    "If not, a semi-successful MS soccer game on Live could start to put a few nails in the EA coffin

    bwahahahaha!!!

    Funniest post I've read all day. "


    Do you not think that MS are capable of releasing a good soccer game? Think of the possibilities of a great soccer game for the Xbox. Whay are people so pro-EA when they are even more monet oriented than MS

    HyZepher

  • renzo #15 8 years ago

    "Do you not think that MS are capable of releasing a good soccer game?"

    Yes.

    "Whay are people so pro-EA when they are even more monet oriented than MS"

    I'm not pro-EA. FIFA does not particularly appeal to me. BUT, you have to admit that the Tiger Woods and Madden series are top-class.

  • Cyhwuhx #16 8 years ago

    Guess you don't have Live then. Either that, or a Camecube, trying to say that nobody wants online games.

    .::: I have all three consoles and all three of them are online enabled. I've been playing on XBL and PS2NG for quite some time now (and about two months GC PSO, I use this nick on all services. If you're doubting, go check).

    I'll be the last to deny that online gaming isn't fun, but then again I was not saying that, was I? It's an option, not a feature. It should be as normal as having a two-player or even four-player option, but instead people are sticking mythical and almost legendary properties unto online options.

    It's not like the four controller ports put the world upside down when the N64 got them. And even now, it's still a afterthought in most games (how else could the PS2 have survived without two additional ports). Same with online. It's great to play with, but for god's sake, it's just another multiplayer option. For once just look past the PR and marketing and simply accept what it truly is.

    And don't come crying about 'potential', because online games haven't changed a bit at heart, since the early MUDs and other multiplayer stuff.
    Online gaming is great but it's far from the being saviour some would like to think it is.

  • HyZepher #17 8 years ago

    I agree that EA publish some great games but are they giving the people what they want.

    Recently MS have started releasing titles that rival EA in a BIG way - Links/TW, Amped 2/SSX 3, Top Spin etc. MS are pushing the online aspect of the Xbox - EA are not. In the long run EA will suffer - Live is what the Xbox gamer wants - not everyone but more and more each day. With games like PGR2 and its Live integration this trend will continue

    HyZepher

  • Wretched Chin #18 8 years ago

    I like Links a lot. I like the old stylee power bar approach even tho it makes putting a bit tricky at times if you're 4 inches away from the cup and you have to eke out a tiny bit of power coz the putter has a top range of 80 feet!

    Plus the green grid is nice - reminds me of playing Links 386 years ago on my 486 and trying to judge the dips and bumps on a green for a 20ft put in.

    To me, the wealth of options, stats and tournements on TW is just too much. As I've said before on other comments, I don't really have that much time to complete games and Links fits in nicely at the moment as it doesn't really take the completist approach that EA games do...

  • Dizzy #19 8 years ago

    >Funniest post I've read all day.

    Yeah Renzo... you sure are a funny guy and very insightful. I especially like your constructive posts.

    HyZepher is making some valid points. In 5 years *all* games will be online.
    Edited by 1 at 03/12/03 @ 12:26

  • renzo #20 8 years ago

    "Yeah Renzo... you sure are a funny guy and very insightful. I especially like your constructive posts."

    I do apologise for not spouting the fanboyistic shite that is apparent in all your posts, and before you reply with your standard "but I own all three consoles, how could I be a fanboy" response, I was laughing at the idea of Microsoft making a good 'soccer' game, not HyZepher's theories on Microsoft's online ambitions.

    Maybe you should read my posts properly. Not all of them are attacks on your beloved Xbox.

  • Dizzy #21 8 years ago

    >laughing at the idea of Microsoft making a good 'soccer' game

    And why is that? Have they made crap soccer game in the past?

    Anyway... I am not getting into this stupid flamewars. Next time, try to add something useful.

  • Ted Cuntablast #22 8 years ago

    "In 5 years *all* games will be online"

    Please explain this ridiculous statement.

  • renzo #23 8 years ago

    "And why is that? Have they made crap soccer game in the past?"

    YES. These statements of mine are not unsubstantiated. They have put out a 'soccer' game in the past, and it was fuckin abysmal.
    Edited by 1 at 03/12/03 @ 14:22

  • renzo #24 8 years ago

    "In 5 years *all* games will be online"

    Please explain this ridiculous statement.

    Oh.. didn't you know?

    /rolls eyes at Mr. Cuntablast's ignorance

  • Cubfan #25 8 years ago

    I've never had more fun with a single player experience than I've had multiplayer gaming with my friends. And I no longer have any friends that play games, being a grown up and all. So yes, I do think unline is fucking fantastic, and I do think it is the future of console gaming. Playing against AI will never be as challenging or as compelling as playing against another person, plain and simple.
    Edited by 1 at 03/12/03 @ 15:14

  • rIcHiEPoOh #26 8 years ago

    I think EA will be in real deep sh*t when the online-enabled MS sports games start to sell very well.

  • Rothgarr #27 8 years ago

    Hang on... this review says NO Progressive and NO widescreen.

    MY copy DOES support Progressive (480P) AND Widescreen. Is my US copy different from European copies?

  • yegon #28 8 years ago

    The PA in PAL stands for pathetic - PAL 'boxes don't support progressive scan at all (hmm, sure ive just posted the same response in the PGR2 thread...)

  • Khanivor #29 8 years ago

    ">laughing at the idea of Microsoft making a good 'soccer' game

    And why is that? Have they made crap soccer game in the past? "

    Micorsoft Soccer, sometime early eighties I think, on the PC. Often regarded as the worst ever footy incarnation on anything anywhere ever.

  • renzo #30 8 years ago

    "Micorsoft Soccer, sometime early eighties I think, on the PC. Often regarded as the worst ever footy incarnation on anything anywhere ever."

    Yep, that's the one. Although it was late '90s I think.

  • msephton #31 3 years ago

    > In 5 years *all* games will be online.

    I thought I'd bump this. ;)