The Game Show Forum > The Big Board
Improve One Pricing Game...
Clay Zambo:
--- Quote from: JasonA1 on May 09, 2025, 01:23:33 PM ---I think that's an overly harsh reaction. Using an extra person from the studio audience would at least be innovative, and the idea of why you want to give them better stuff is easy to explain. "If you give [him/her] more than you keep for yourself, then we'll reward your generosity with [the bonus prize]."
That said, I get more pause from whether or not it's worth all the time it would take from a modern episode to pick that person, explain the game, and play it the way they used to, all to give another person the types of items Give or Keep used. I think there'd be (unnecessary) attention placed on those prizes being desirable vs. games like Secret X where they're just a means to an end.
-Jason
--- End quote ---
Your point about the shorter runtime of modern episodes is entirely valid (and one of the many reasons you work in this industry far more regularly than I do). ;)
Jeremy Nelson:
--- Quote from: JasonA1 on May 09, 2025, 01:23:33 PM ---I think that's an overly harsh reaction. Using an extra person from the studio audience would at least be innovative, and the idea of why you want to give them better stuff is easy to explain. "If you give [him/her] more than you keep for yourself, then we'll reward your generosity with [the bonus prize]."
That said, I get more pause from whether or not it's worth all the time it would take from a modern episode to pick that person, explain the game, and play it the way they used to, all to give another person the types of items Give or Keep used. I think there'd be (unnecessary) attention placed on those prizes being desirable vs. games like Secret X where they're just a means to an end.
-Jason
--- End quote ---
Even if we're talking three digit prizes, the premise's crux falls a little flat when considering that more expensive doesn't necessarily equal most desairable. You give me the choice between a $500 espresso machine and a $300 pasta maker? Yeah, I'll give you the latter, doubly so if it means I'm going to Fiji. If you're not offering something specifically valuable to that player, the greed vs altruism angle is a non-issue.
chrisholland03:
--- Quote from: Jeremy Nelson on May 11, 2025, 04:33:51 PM ---
--- Quote from: JasonA1 on May 09, 2025, 01:23:33 PM ---I think that's an overly harsh reaction. Using an extra person from the studio audience would at least be innovative, and the idea of why you want to give them better stuff is easy to explain. "If you give [him/her] more than you keep for yourself, then we'll reward your generosity with [the bonus prize]."
That said, I get more pause from whether or not it's worth all the time it would take from a modern episode to pick that person, explain the game, and play it the way they used to, all to give another person the types of items Give or Keep used. I think there'd be (unnecessary) attention placed on those prizes being desirable vs. games like Secret X where they're just a means to an end.
-Jason
--- End quote ---
Even if we're talking three digit prizes, the premise's crux falls a little flat when considering that more expensive doesn't necessarily equal most desairable. You give me the choice between a $500 espresso machine and a $300 pasta maker? Yeah, I'll give you the latter, doubly so if it means I'm going to Fiji. If you're not offering something specifically valuable to that player, the greed vs altruism angle is a non-issue.
--- End quote ---
What if they both get the grand prize for successful altruism?
BillCullen1:
--- Quote from: BrandonFG on May 11, 2025, 01:20:31 AM ---
--- Quote from: Kevin Prather on May 11, 2025, 01:18:21 AM ---I only recently learned that a Money Game winner gets the money accumulated in addition to the car. I always thought it was one or the other.
--- End quote ---
Same, and by "recently" I mean literally right this minute.
--- End quote ---
I recall Barker saying during the Money Game rules "If you get the two numbers in the price of the car, you win the car plus any money you have here" (in the money slots).
Clay Zambo:
--- Quote from: chrisholland03 on May 11, 2025, 08:07:22 PM ---
--- Quote from: Jeremy Nelson on May 11, 2025, 04:33:51 PM ---
--- Quote from: JasonA1 on May 09, 2025, 01:23:33 PM ---I think that's an overly harsh reaction. Using an extra person from the studio audience would at least be innovative, and the idea of why you want to give them better stuff is easy to explain. "If you give [him/her] more than you keep for yourself, then we'll reward your generosity with [the bonus prize]."
That said, I get more pause from whether or not it's worth all the time it would take from a modern episode to pick that person, explain the game, and play it the way they used to, all to give another person the types of items Give or Keep used. I think there'd be (unnecessary) attention placed on those prizes being desirable vs. games like Secret X where they're just a means to an end.
-Jason
--- End quote ---
Even if we're talking three digit prizes, the premise's crux falls a little flat when considering that more expensive doesn't necessarily equal most desairable. You give me the choice between a $500 espresso machine and a $300 pasta maker? Yeah, I'll give you the latter, doubly so if it means I'm going to Fiji. If you're not offering something specifically valuable to that player, the greed vs altruism angle is a non-issue.
--- End quote ---
What if they both get the grand prize for successful altruism?
--- End quote ---
A la "Phone Home Game"? Why not. We might need another red kettle, though.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version