-
Had two points to argue and get opinions on here.
* Which is better? The dynamics of Instant Bargains with the Shopping endgame, or with the Winner's Board/WBMG? We all loved the shopping endgame, but there was something to the fact you only needed the win - ANY win - under the later formats.
* Which is better? The third Instant Bargain, or Instant Ca$h?
I'll toss more of my thoughts in once there's some input.
-Jason
-
[quote name=\'JasonA1\' date=\'Mar 23 2006, 07:58 PM\']* Which is better? The dynamics of Instant Bargains with the Shopping endgame, or with the Winner's Board/WBMG? We all loved the shopping endgame, but there was something to the fact you only needed the win - ANY win - under the later formats. [/quote] Much as I like the winner's board and shopping, if you're going for the car, cash jackpot or Big Fella, there's no way that you're coughing up a part of your lead to win a microwave or Palm Springs Holiday. If you're on your first day, you might be a bit more likely to go for one, but I don't think the end game has any effect on it.
* Which is better? The third Instant Bargain, or Instant Ca$h?
Instant Cash, in that it creates a tie when it's played for. You don't necessarily get that with the third IB. That and everyone can spend cash.
-
[quote name=\'JasonA1\' date=\'Mar 23 2006, 08:58 PM\']Had two points to argue and get opinions on here.
* Which is better? The dynamics of Instant Bargains with the Shopping endgame, or with the Winner's Board/WBMG? We all loved the shopping endgame, but there was something to the fact you only needed the win - ANY win - under the later formats.
* Which is better? The third Instant Bargain, or Instant Ca$h?
I'll toss more of my thoughts in once there's some input.
-Jason
[snapback]113981[/snapback]
[/quote]
As to the first question, I'm a stickler for the Shopping format, but there is something to be said for the Winner's Board in that Instant Bargains didn't neccesarily stop players from winning big prizes. All the same, they had more impact in the traditional Shopping format.
As to the second question, I'd like to go off the board: the original incarnation of the Aussie's Cashcard game, which was literally a combination of the two. A big prize or a big hunk of cash could be won.
-
Liked the Shopping Format...Winner's Board was too Concentration-y...and again, if I've said it once, I've said it...once...the Winner's Big Money Game would have been perfect for Chain Reaction.
And, two thumbs up, way up to the Instant Cash.
-
While the shopping format was truest to the show's original concept, it could be boring to watch what amounted to Jim and the champ standing around for about 5 min. or so while Jay rattled off all the major prizes on offer (at least when you're a hyperactive 6YO, like I was @ the time...LOL). From that standpoint, the Winner's Board was more interesting, plus there was a pretty diverse mix of 10-time champs who were content to quit w/their 8 prizes and $13K, and those like Mark DeCarlo who just had to come back and try for the $50K bonus.
The WBMG was a different story...it was a good concept, but ridiculously out of place on a show like $otC, not to mention that the long-reigining champs once prevalent during the show's mid-80s prime had become scarce, for w/e reason, meaning that actually seeing someone try for the car (which required remaining champ for 7 days) was a rarity, and someone going for the $50K was rarer still, only happening twice in the entire WBMG era.
Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious "Chuckie Baby")
-
Liked the Shopping Format...Winner's Board was too Concentration-y
I don't mean to peck your eyes out everybody, but I was talking about how Instant Bargains played out in both endgame formats. Joe seemed to follow me on that one. If this helps, here's my opinion:
The IBs were more of a toss-up in the Winner's Board because a champion only need $1 over second place to win and move on to bigger prizes. The actual figure s/he won with was a non-factor. In the shopping format, if they need $95 and the win that day, there was no way they'd drop a cent on some of that stuff, because every penny counted towards the ultimate goal of the Lot. I'm basically arguing that while the Board and Big Money Game themselves suck, the Instant Bargains were a lot more interesting when they were installed. Even a 2-day champion in shopping would have little reason to buy any of that stuff, regardless of Jim's temptations. But, if I'm a Winner's Board contestant and they throw me a new TV with $500 if I reduce my lead from $15 to 5? *rings in*
-Jason
-
[quote name=\'FOXSportsFan\' date=\'Mar 23 2006, 11:08 PM\']
the Winner's Big Money Game would have been perfect for Chain Reaction.
[snapback]113986[/snapback]
[/quote]
Split Second would have benefitted from a bonus like this, too. IIRC It was usually won with a split second or two left on the clock :)
-
In the shopping format, if they need $95 and the win that day, there was no way they'd drop a cent on some of that stuff, because every penny counted towards the ultimate goal of the Lot.
Wins of $95 were somewhat rare on "Sale". You'd probably have an idea part way through the show whether or not you'd have a chance at getting that much. If it was me, and I figured there's no way I'd get there, I'd probably be more likely to buy an Instant Bargain because I'd have to come back the next day to try again anyway.
-
Since all replies appear to be in agreement as to which after-game format was preferred, that begs this question:
Why was it changed? So the nighttime version would have a big difference at the finish of the show than the daytime? The format wasn't broken. Why was it fixed? Can't really be that budgetary. They went from possibly giving the prizes away to almost definitely giving the prizes away with The Board. And if the money and the car were knocked off early, where's the excitement later on?
"Left on the board is the Giorgio's shopping spree and the one-year supply of Hershey's Kisses". Big woo.
-
[quote name=\'Don Howard\' date=\'Mar 24 2006, 09:13 AM\']Since all replies appear to be in agreement as to which after-game format was preferred, that begs this question:
Why was it changed? So the nighttime version would have a big difference at the finish of the show than the daytime? The format wasn't broken. Why was it fixed? Can't really be that budgetary. They went from possibly giving the prizes away to almost definitely giving the prizes away with The Board. And if the money and the car were knocked off early, where's the excitement later on?
"Left on the board is the Giorgio's shopping spree and the one-year supply of Hershey's Kisses". Big woo.
[snapback]114027[/snapback]
[/quote]
The theory that is the most logical (in the case of the network version) was that with the shopping format end game, the producers could not guarantee to NBC that a champion would retire in ten wins, per network regulations. There were just enough instances of champs taking longer than ten days to get to the Big Magillas for the network to be uncomfortable (the easy way out would've been to change the limitations or drop them completely, but they didn't want to do that).
As for the syndicated version, beats me, unless all of a sudden the producers decided they had to be consistent with the network version.
-
[quote name=\'uncamark\' date=\'Mar 24 2006, 12:41 PM\']
The theory that is the most logical (in the case of the network version) was that with the shopping format end game, the producers could not guarantee to NBC that a champion would retire in ten wins, per network regulations. There were just enough instances of champs taking longer than ten days to get to the Big Magillas for the network to be uncomfortable (the easy way out would've been to change the limitations or drop them completely, but they didn't want to do that).
As for the syndicated version, beats me, unless all of a sudden the producers decided they had to be consistent with the network version.
[snapback]114040[/snapback]
[/quote]
When the Winner's Board came around for the NBC version, it took eleven days to win it all. Was that allowed in the network regulations?
-
[quote name=\'DJDustman\' date=\'Mar 24 2006, 01:18 PM\']
When the Winner's Board came around for the NBC version, it took eleven days to win it all. Was that allowed in the network regulations?
[snapback]114046[/snapback]
[/quote]
I suspect it was, given the format lasted for roughly three years. Also, Blockbusters had a 20 game win limit(up from 10) starting about halfway through the Cullen run, and NBC let that fly.
-
I think it's a toss-up between the shopping format and the winner's big money board. Both had their advantages. With the big money board, you could win a bigger prize on the first day. With the shopping version, there was a lot more temptation (veiled reference to Aussie version unattended) throughout the whole show. (That trip to Europe would be great, but I really need a new car. Should I risk it?) More strategy was involved in the main game too. I recall one player in the shopping version didn't buy any instant bargains because every dollar was crucial. I liked the Instant Cash better than the third instant bargain. Cash was more tempting. And if a player took a crack at it, it made for an interesting speed round. I noticed how the final bonus game format (the buzz in and answer the puzzle format) was not mentioned. I guess maybe because it was so horrible, it isn't worth mentioning.
JustinInAtlanta
-
I recall one player in the shopping version didn't buy any instant bargains because every dollar was crucial.
Ah, the infamous Alice Conkright...during her 6 days as champ, she was eligible for all but 1 of the 18 IBs offered during the course of that reign...as it progressed, Jim got more and more desperate for her to buy that he'd offer things like a $1K bonus w/a set of Cabbage Patch Kids, etc. and would often plead for her to "just hit the buzzer!", etc.
Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious "Chuckie Baby")
-
[quote name=\'ChuckNet\' date=\'Mar 24 2006, 08:55 PM\']Ah, the infamous Alice Conkright...[/quote]
Whom the contestant coordinators called -- in an homage to George Gobel -- "spooky old Alice". At least that's what they called her in our contestant meetings. For as much as WE remember her as one of the all-time greats, she was put up to us as an example of an uninteresting contestant. It wasn't that she didn't buy the IB's, it was that her entire demeanor was robotic and boring to viewers. Nobody on the show begrudged her winnings, but they were happy to see her go.
I liked the original shopping end game for one key, simple reason that I didn't see anybody else mention yet, at least not specifically. If you decided to come back the next day, you were risking something, and that was a very unusual concept in that show's era. Most shows, you win he game, you pocket some nice money, you play again on the next show with nothing on the line. On Sale, you might not get the bigger fish you wanted, and your consolation prize was only a couple hundred bucks.
-
You know what? If I had just cleaned out a show for $140,000, I would not give two tin whistles about what the contestant coordinators thought about my performance. I'm there to play the game, and if I get caught up in it and forget to emote, piss on them. They want to show my six dominating wins as how NOT to play the game, they can go right ahead: I just got paid.
After all, they're the ones that put her on the show, right? If they thought she was that bad, she wouldn't have gotten through the cracks.
-
I have some clips of Sale saved in my Windows Media Player, and here's a rundown of them:
Shopping era: David Rogers' $109,000 win and Tim Holleran's lot win
Winner's Board: Sandy's car win, Curtis Warren's and Linda Credit's $50,000 wins
-
I prefer the shopping format--I think there was a greater risk/reward factor with the instant bargains. That said--I also prefer instant cash--the 3rd IB was usually some overpriced piece of junk.
I have some clips of Sale saved in my Windows Media Player, and here's a rundown of them:
Super!
-
I hate to resurrect my own dead topic, but I wanted to get my thoughts on the 3rd IB vs. Instant Ca$h debate out there:
Instant Ca$h is a really, really cool concept; but when the leader had ~$20 or more on their contemporaries, it was moot. Plus, Jim couldn't wheel 'n' deal on it. With the 3rd IB, he could alter the price and cash offer greatly so that the leader would take and the game would change. With the Ca$h, it was merely a minute-or-so speedbump segment.
-Jason
-
[quote name=\'JasonA1\' post=\'114428\' date=\'Mar 28 2006, 08:55 AM\']
Instant Ca$h is a really, really cool concept; but when the leader had ~$20 or more on their contemporaries, it was moot. Plus, Jim couldn't wheel 'n' deal on it. With the 3rd IB, he could alter the price and cash offer greatly so that the leader would take and the game would change. With the Ca$h, it was merely a minute-or-so speedbump segment.
-Jason
[/quote]
Would a better fix for the Instant Cash have been to make the cost of it the usual cost of the third IB($15 or so) was, regardless of the player's lead. Jim could wheel and deal on a tie on whenever the producers let him, as he usually did :) I remember someone risking $65 to go for the base amount of $1K one time.
-
[quote name=\'zachhoran\' post=\'114430\' date=\'Mar 28 2006, 09:04 AM\']
Would a better fix for the Instant Cash have been to make the cost of it the usual cost of the third IB($15 or so) was, regardless of the player's lead. Jim could wheel and deal on a tie on whenever the producers let him, as he usually did :) I remember someone risking $65 to go for the base amount of $1K one time.
[/quote]
Yes and no. If a contestant has > $15, then there's some strategy and risk. But in the case of that $65 lead you describe, if I go for the Instant Cash with that kind of lead, where's the risk or drama? I'm still up $50, and unless my 2nd place opponent can rattle off 10 in a row, I can just about take a nap during the Speed Round. Plus, I'll have at least an extra $100 in my pocket (consolation for not getting the actual jackpot).
Giving up the lead sets up a nice dilemma, esp. if the jackpot is actually up to a nice number. But, in that contestant's case, giving up that kind of lead for a not-even-guaranteed $1,000 is just ridiculous IMO.