• Publisher: SCEA
  • Release Date: Mar 11, 2002
User Score

Generally favorable reviews- based on 14 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 13 out of 14
  2. Negative: 0 out of 14

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Sep 27, 2011
    This game is fun for a bit until you notice the glaring problems. Without any wind, it would say I am hitting 232 and I would hit full power and almost perfectly on and it would only go 209 yards and into the water below. The game does a terrible job [predicting how far your shot will go, in a game where feet matter. There is no excuse and no other reason why that should happen. Also even on the beginner courses the computer gets pars and birdies every time making it almost impossible to keep up. They should make the game more accessible and not make waste your time on 18 holes against perfect players starting out. Also even if you are just a tad off on the hit with the accuracy button it will go way short (doesn't even make sense with accuracy) or way off to the side. They can't expect you to be perfect and should penalize you as much for barely any error. Expand

Generally favorable reviews - based on 30 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 29 out of 30
  2. Negative: 0 out of 30
  1. 80
    In comparison [to "Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2002"], the tap-tap-tap system employed in Hot Shots can't help but feel a little bit tired. It works, but there are far more possibilities to the PS2 control interface that could be make golf gameplay fresher, more intuitive, and more fun.
  2. 90
    Usually a person will hate a game when they lose at it on a consistent basis, the case is completely different here. This is just a testament of how fun and gripping this game is to play.
  3. I can't remember a game with almost nothing I would change...No other golf game keeps the action moving so well from one shot to the next. [Apr 2002, p.138]