The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: alfonzos on August 06, 2012, 10:43:58 PM
-
How about this? The goal is to make $10,000, but the player wins if the total is anywhere between $9000 and $11,000, inclusive.
The spiel: "I want to give you ten thousand dollars in cash and prizes. The problem is that the prize I want to give you has a price of less than ten dollars thousand. Write the check for amount that will make total of the prize and the check for ten thousand dollars. If you think the prize is one thousand dollars then write the check for nine thousand. One thousand plus nine thousand is ten thousand and you would win! If you come with one thousand of ten thousand, high or low, you still win. Now, get writing!"
-
The problem is that the prize I want to give you has a price of less than ten dollars.
"$10,990, Drew!"
-
Teaming up with the producer of the teen TPiR, I see.
-
How about this? The goal is to make $10,000, but the player wins if the total is anywhere between $9000 and $11,000, inclusive.
"Let's double the stakes and slide the target back a little." How is that a revelation at all?
-
Egads. A pricing puzzle!
-
Egads. A pricing puzzle!
Sounds more like a pricing stunt to me. I was about to say "hey, he sorta changed things by allowing the player to go over," but then realized that if you just move the bar to $11,000 and double the window, he really didn't.
And frankly, I don't think Check Game should be offering more than Grand Game.
-
Honestly, I never cared for Check Game in the first place. I really don't know why people were adamant about seeing it come back.
-
Honestly, I never cared for Check Game in the first place. I really don't know why people were adamant about seeing it come back.
Interesting. I like it because you have a quick game that actually tests a bit of pricing acument that also has a bit of math skills involved.
-
That's a lot of work for a not-so-complicated game, and the proposal lost me. Imagine how confused Freddie Fratboy might get, as he says to hell with it and writes the check for $10,069 or $10,420.
I actually like Check Game, if nothing else for the big novelty checks given out. If you want to adjust for inflation, just make it so the total value falls b/w $9-10K. But keep it simple after that.
-
I liked Check Game too. But really, the biggest charm of the game (to me, at least) was how Bob would almost always get "the only person in the studio who didn't know the rules" playing the game. And Bob was at least able to explain it in a way that most people understood once he told them what to do. Once Drew took over, that whole bit went away and any contestants not understanding only became frustrating.
If today's Joe Plinkos are really too daft to understand the game as it was, it theoretically could be changed to a simpler "Write the check for what you think the prize is worth, and if you're within $(whatever) you win the prize and money in the amount of the check.
-
If you want to adjust for inflation, just make it so the total value falls b/w $9-10K.
Which presents the same problem as it did when it increased from $5-6K to $7-8K -- you're offering more through the same amount of leeway as before.
-
If you want to adjust for inflation, just make it so the total value falls b/w $9-10K.
Which presents the same problem as it did when it increased from $5-6K to $7-8K -- you're offering more through the same amount of leeway as before.
Why's that a problem?
(Not that I like increasing prize values just on account of inflation but...so what?
-
If you want to adjust for inflation, just make it so the total value falls b/w $9-10K.
Which presents the same problem as it did when it increased from $5-6K to $7-8K -- you're offering more through the same amount of leeway as before.
I actually thought about that, but you're offering a $9-10,000 prize package. It's not supposed to be a slam dunk. I think a $2K range creates an unnecessary dent for the prize budget.
-
When other games adjusted their figures due to inflation, the win conditions grew as well. Grocery Game went up to a $1 spread. Bullseye became a $2 spread. When they updated Check Game the second time, they increased the number of possible guesses, but did not increase the winning range along with it. I understand the logic of why some people find that unfair. It went one season with those ranges and posted a win/loss of 3-7, which was a pretty similar result to at least the previous two years, which were 3-10 and 4-7.
-Jason
-
When other games adjusted their figures due to inflation, the win conditions grew as well. Grocery Game went up to a $1 spread. Bullseye became a $2 spread.
As Brandon said, both were still playing for the same stakes.
When they updated Check Game the second time, they increased the number of possible guesses, but did not increase the winning range along with it.
Not appreciably.
It went one season with those ranges and posted a win/loss of 3-7, which was a pretty similar result to at least the previous two years, which were 3-10 and 4-7.
...and this proves that point.
-
When other games adjusted their figures due to inflation, the win conditions grew as well. Grocery Game went up to a $1 spread. Bullseye became a $2 spread. When they updated Check Game the second time, they increased the number of possible guesses, but did not increase the winning range along with it. I understand the logic of why some people find that unfair. It went one season with those ranges and posted a win/loss of 3-7, which was a pretty similar result to at least the previous two years, which were 3-10 and 4-7.
I look at it and say, "huh, maybe the contestants that play the game just aren't that good at guessing the prices of hot tubs, jukeboxes and dune buggies."
-
I look at it and say, "huh, maybe the contestants that play the game just aren't that good at guessing the prices of hot tubs, jukeboxes and dune buggies."
Yeah, I have to say I have never seen someone write a check on Check Game for an amount that made it obvious that they didn't know the rules. Not saying it never happened, but I think most people understood the game just fine and merely sucked at it.
-
Okay, I just wanted to make the game/puzzle easier to understand. Keep the target at $5000 but it's a win if the total is between $4000 and $6000. I think the giant novelty check is kind of cool too.
-
Okay, I just wanted to make the game/puzzle easier to understand.
(That was meant to be a choice, right?)
You failed.
-
Okay, I just wanted to make the game/puzzle easier to understand.
See, here's the thing: the games are meant to be easy to understand, and playable by a huge swath of humanity. They're not supposed to be won every time. Some of them require strategy and tactics, some require luck, others require physical dexterity.
The game is not hard to understand, as they played it for nearly 30 years or so, and rarely did the segment devolve into tears and whining. "We're going to take the cost of that prize and add it to the value of the check that you'll write. If that totals between $5000 and $6000, you win them both." As I said before, it seems that the game is played mostly by people who are unable to hit the appropriate range, and the stats seem to bear that out.
-
How about this? The goal is to make $10,000, but the player wins if the total is anywhere between $9000 and $11,000, inclusive.
The spiel: "I want to give you ten thousand dollars in cash and prizes. The problem is that the prize I want to give you has a price of less than ten dollars thousand. Write the check for amount that will make total of the prize and the check for ten thousand dollars. If you think the prize is one thousand dollars then write the check for nine thousand. One thousand plus nine thousand is ten thousand and you would win! If you come with one thousand of ten thousand, high or low, you still win. Now, get writing!"
I don't see an improvement over the way they do it now.
-
The biggest problem with Check Game isn't the rules, it's that Drew, in a continuing effort to "make the show his own" decided to completely drop the aspect that "nobody understands how to play Check Game", which Bob made the game's "hook". Take away all that, and yes, the game is a waste of maybe 3 minutes. Okay, Drew makes a joke about the quill pen, then he comments about how the contestant must take forever at a checkout line... once is funny, EVERY game play, not so much.
Since Check Game's "hook" is that contestants don't know how to play it, Drew could still USE that, but put his OWN stamp on it, rather than completely dump it altogether. In fact, Drew basically used that approach for virtually EVERY pricing game. Drew dropped Bob's Range Game "joke", after botching it up a couple times, but at the same time he didn't ADD anything... same deal with That's Too Much... I groan when I see That's Too Much now, because Drew doesn't CARE how enthusiastic you are when you say THAT'S TOO MUCH. He took away what made that game at least kinda fun, and I am not crazy about how they reveal whether the contestant made the right choice.
-
That's certainly your opinion, Matt.
-
Since Check Game's "hook" is that contestants don't know how to play it,
You could not be further off the mark here. The hook is and has always been that the contestant is writing a BIG FARKING CHECK.
I groan when I see That's Too Much now, because Drew doesn't CARE how enthusiastic you are when you say THAT'S TOO MUCH.
Change is hard.
-
Since Check Game's "hook" is that contestants don't know how to play it,
You could not be further off the mark here. The hook is and has always been that the contestant is writing a BIG FARKING CHECK.
That's a give in. Of course, writing a check for ANY amount you wish (providing you don't go over the maximum amount)is exciting, but just writing a check in itself doesn't make the game OVERALL that exciting...that's why Bob kept making a big deal about people that don't know how to play the game... there are NO other pricing games where Bob has ever made that observation. Once Drew took away that aspect of the game, it was just no longer fun to watch, and that's one reason why I believe they're not playing it.
I groan when I see That's Too Much now, because Drew doesn't CARE how enthusiastic you are when you say THAT'S TOO MUCH.
Change is hard.
I thought I wasn't alone about how dull That's Too Much is now. Just call me the cheese I guess, because I stand alone.
-
Not only do you stand alone, but you messed up the quote tags. Again.
-
I thought I wasn't alone about how dull That's Too Much is now. Just call me the cheese I guess, because I stand alone.
Rest assured, we are *well* aware of the throngs around here for which change is hard.
-
Why is it that when somebody says "I liked it the old way better" that you follow-up with "change is hard"? I don't think that the one follows the other every time.
-
Why is it that when somebody says "I liked it the old way better" that you follow-up with "change is hard"? I don't think that the one follows the other every time.
I don't either. However, 99% of the time it certainly does with regard to The Price is Right, especially when it's an "OMG Drew broke the show" rant.
-
I thought I wasn't alone about how dull That's Too Much is now. Just call me the cheese I guess, because I stand alone.
That's Too Much became dull because it was setup so difficultly for a season and a half and way overplayed. One of those problems has been fixed, and since one is fixed, the other isn't nearly as bad.
And in regards to Drew dropping things Bob used to do, he didn't do too badly adapting other things. He has done excellently with One Away and the "mighty sound effects lady" and good with Cliff Hangers and Clock Game.
-
I thought I wasn't alone about how dull That's Too Much is now. Just call me the cheese I guess, because I stand alone.
That's Too Much became dull because it was setup so difficultly for a season and a half and way overplayed. One of those problems has been fixed, and since one is fixed, the other isn't nearly as bad.
And in regards to Drew dropping things Bob used to do, he didn't do too badly adapting other things. He has done excellently with One Away and the "mighty sound effects lady" and good with Cliff Hangers and Clock Game.
Drew seems to like One Away. I wish he'd approach ALL the games that way. Drew has improved with Clock Game... in the beginning, he was hinting too much with the inflection of his voice, and getting TOO hyper at times. Once they added a "third prize bonus" and did away with the 4 digit prices, he definitely eased up. As for Cliff Hangers, yeah EVERYONE likes that game. I'd like to see him vary his schtick but Cliff Hangers is still fun to watch regardless.
-
Jesus CHRIST would you learn how to use the quote tags?
-
The biggest problem with Check Game isn't the rules, it's that Drew, in a continuing effort to "make the show his own" decided to completely drop the aspect that "nobody understands how to play Check Game", which Bob made the game's "hook". Take away all that, and yes, the game is a waste of maybe 3 minutes. Okay, Drew makes a joke about the quill pen, then he comments about how the contestant must take forever at a checkout line... once is funny, EVERY game play, not so much.
That's interesting. Once is funny, but every time isn't? You held up "I get the one person of you lot who doesn't know the game" as some paragon of knee-slapping humor, and it happened damn near every time. And the Range Game joke? What's funny about 37 hours, unless maybe you work in a reference to the guy in the I Cut My Arm Off: The Movie movie. Even then, that's a stretch. And all those times that Bob would Pointedly Not Reveal The Price of the Friggin' Cheetos Already. Once is funny, but every time...it got tiresome.
Not only have you proved totally incapable of managing the quote function, but your basic premise is flawed.