The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: tyshaun1 on May 28, 2004, 11:19:57 AM
-
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1/2 Off made its debut, and I must say, it's a pretty entertaining game. The contestants start out with 16 boxes, and must determine which prize out of 2 is half-off its correct price. By choosing the half-priced product, they eliminate half the boxes. There are 3 selections total, which means they can narrow it down to 2. The goal is to choose the box which has $10,000 in it.
Today's player managed to narrow down to 4 boxes (1, 7, 11, and 15) chooses the 7, and wins the dough. The reveal is similar to Fortune Hunter, where the contestant lifts the box to reveal what she's won. Overall, a quite enjoyable game, especially the sound effect when the empty boxes are removed. Good work, Mandel!
Tyshaun
-
Isn't there a rule againest posting spoilers before the show is over now?
-
[quote name=\'JayC\' date=\'May 28 2004, 10:22 AM\'] Isn't there a rule againest posting spoilers before the show is over now? [/quote]
Yes, but I didn't divulge info about the entire show, only the outcome for 1/2 Off, which I posted after it aired on the east coast and is CLEARLY labeled as a spoiler. All of which is within the rules. So sorry about your luck.
Tyshaun
-
So, is there anything in the other 15 boxes?
-
I have posted some pictures from the premiere playing of The Price is Right's newest pricing game, "1/2 Off" at Game Show Favorites. WARNING: These photos DO contain spoilers from the first playing so view at your own risk. Here are the pictures:
http://www.gameshowfavorites.com/PriceIsRi...alfOffPremiere/ (http://\"http://www.gameshowfavorites.com/PriceIsRight/20040528_TPIR_HalfOffPremiere/\")
-
[quote name=\'Lemonjello\' date=\'May 28 2004, 10:48 AM\'] So, is there anything in the other 15 boxes? [/quote]
It was not mentioned one way or the other, but apparently, no.
Tyshaun
-
[quote name=\'tyshaun1\' date=\'May 28 2004, 10:51 AM\'] [quote name=\'Lemonjello\' date=\'May 28 2004, 10:48 AM\'] So, is there anything in the other 15 boxes? [/quote]
It was not mentioned one way or the other, but apparently, no.
Tyshaun [/quote]
If it's not mentioned one way or the other, then how do you know?
Apparently, it sounds like you're guessing.
BTW, I like the game....but not the reveal...just like fortune hunter (obviously) , where I thought Bob's shenanigans got old after awhile...
But Mandel should be absolutely proud! Read his blog and you'll see how the idea came to fruition....esp what didn't make the cut.....interesting read on how a game really gets 'developed'.
Apparently.
ms
-
[quote name=\'JayC\' date=\'May 28 2004, 11:22 AM\'] Isn't there a rule againest posting spoilers before the show is over now? [/quote]
Not at all, and I can't believe anyone paid so little attention to the discussion that they thought otherwise.
We don't want people who were AT A TAPING spoiling the results. So if you're in the audience and you see a million dollar spin, or a $100,000 puzzle solve, or something interesting happening on Jeopardy! (hmm....), keep it to yourself.
However, there IS an appropriate place to put spoilers, and that would be in the Show Summaries forum. It doesn't have to be a summary of the entire show to still be something that people on The Big Board might not want to read about until they've had a chance to see it in their area (or on their TiVo). So I've moved it.
-
[quote name=\'tvwxman\' date=\'May 28 2004, 09:12 AM\'] But Mandel should be absolutely proud! Read his blog and you'll see how the idea came to fruition [/quote]
For the newbies in the audience, could someone explain who "Mandel" is, and where his "blog" is?
-
http://mandelweb.com/ (http://\"http://mandelweb.com/\")
Mandel is a member of this Forum and a long-time contributor to the general internet musings of this community. He's employed by Fremantle.
-
Now that I have seen the new "½-Off" game on TPIR, I thought it was quite good. It reminded me of a game that was once played on the old Ohio Lottery "Buckeye 1000" TV game show of the 1970s, back in the days when playing the lottery meant buying tickets with pre-printed numbers on them and then waiting for the outcome of a once-a-week number drawing.
In this case, the regular "Buckeye 1000" game tickets carried an extra 5-digit number in the ticket's top margin, which you matched with the 5-digit winning lottery number that was drawn on each week's show. (The regular 5-digit numbers on the tickets won you either $250 or $500 if you matched them with that number.) If you matched this special number on your ticket, you qualified for this special limited-run game that was played on the show along with the regular TV game that paid the winner up to $1000 a month for life, with a $400,000 minimum payoff.
There really wasn't much to the game, however: Sixteen qualifying players would be seated in a gallery (like on Jackpot) with cards numbered from 1 to 16. They would stand up at the start of each round of play and then a wheel with segments alternating "High" and "Low" would be spun that would eliminate half of them from further play (either the players numbered 1-8 or the players numbered 9-16, depending on what the wheel stopped on). The eliminated players would then sit down and a second wheel with segments alternating "Odd" and "Even" would be spun to eliminate half of the remaining players, narrowing the field to four.
These four players still standing would then turn over their number cards and on the card backs would be one of the letters "X," "T," "R," and "A" (the game was set up so that no two players would have the same letter at this point). One more wheel was spun with those four letters on it, and the player holding the letter corresponding to the one the wheel stopped on would win the prize for that round and be eliminated from further game play entirely.
My memory is a little hazy on the prizes for each round in this game, but I think it was played for $5,000 in the first round, $10,000 in the second, and $25,000 in the third, with all of the other players getting $1,000 for qualifying for the show.
Now to the guy who created this game for The Price is Right: How about coming up with some new and interesting games for the Ohio Lottery's current Cash Explosion Double Play show? They've had that same boring game for years, which is why I switched to the Powerball Instant Millionaire lottery show that airs opposite it in the Greater Cincinnati area.
Michael Brandenburg
(and I hope you'll have it up and running starting October 2, 2004!)
-
This is really one of the best games to have come out in a really long time. Right now, I see little to no need to tweek any of it.
Just as a small suggestion. Maybe you can add variety to the boxes, by having some with smaller cash prizes (Like $1000 or under), some with nothing at all, and maybe one or two with a "Pick Again" possiblity.
Mandel deserves all the acolades, well done ! Look foreword to the next game you concieve !
-Joe R.
(Also, is it me ? Or does did "Half-Off" reminds me of $otC's "Instand Ca$h" segment ?)
-
Two things came to mind when I saw 1/2 Off:
One - how long has it been since there was a game that used six or more (for lack of a better term for it, although it's not 100% accurate) "two-digit" prizes? (The last one I can think of was Trader Bob.)
Two - it appears that somebody at the show has finally realized that $10,000 is not what it used to be, when you consider that anyone who gets all three choices correct has a 50-50 chance of winning the money.
And how many active games are there now where both (a) you can win no matter how badly you do with the prices, and (b) you can get all of the prices right and still not win, apply? The ones I can think of off the top of my head are:
1/2 Off
Hole In One Or Two
Let 'Em Roll
Spelling Bee
Pass the Buck
(I don't incluce Plinko as $10,000 in that game is not considered a "win")
-- Don
-
[quote name=\'That Don Guy\' date=\'May 28 2004, 01:38 PM\'] One - how long has it been since there was a game that used six or more (for lack of a better term for it, although it's not 100% accurate) "two-digit" prizes? (The last one I can think of was Trader Bob.) [/quote]
Someone's forgotten about On the Spot...but after seeing that abomination a handful of times, I can't blame you for forgetting. ;-)
-
Unimpressive.
There have been two pricing games with the same basic concept for almost 30 years. All Half-Off is, is Bonus Game/Shell Game with one small prize taken away and with longer odds:
Zero correct small prize picks: 1 in 16 odds (I assume the contestant still gets to pick a box if she flubs all three small prizes)
One correct small prize pick: 1 in 8 odds
Two correct small prize picks: 1 in 4 odds
Three correct small prize picks: 1 in 2 odds. If you played Bonus/Shell game with three small prizes the odds would be 3 in 4.
The way they are staging it, however, is very clever, making it potentially the perfect prize-budget-control game. If you want a win, load all 16 boxes with $10,000 worth of stage money. If you want a loss, leave all 16 boxes empty. A win or loss could be completely preordained and the audience would be none the wiser. In addition, there is no "guaranteed win" as there is with Bonus/Shell Game; this is what makes a preordained loss possible. If a contestant gets all three small prize picks correct, she can still lose because she picked the "wrong box", when in fact both of the remaining boxes, or all 16 boxes, could be empty. They don't do a post-facto reveal so the audience doesn't know what's in the unpicked boxes. Legal disclaimer: I'm not saying this is how the game actually is implemented, it is how the game could be implemented if they so chose.
I hope they at least change the pattern of box elimination each time it is played.
To its credit, the "half-off" concept used with the small prizes is novel.
-
They don't do a post-facto reveal so the audience doesn't know what's in the unpicked boxes.
How do you know? We don't know what happens when a contestant loses. It's possible they reveal where the money was on a loss.
-
[quote name=\'Vgmastr\' date=\'May 28 2004, 12:04 PM\']
They don't do a post-facto reveal so the audience doesn't know what's in the unpicked boxes.
How do you know? We don't know what happens when a contestant loses. It's possible they reveal where the money was on a loss. [/quote]
That's indeed possible, but on a win they don't reveal where the money wasn't, as is the case with Bonus Game. Theoretically, if they wanted a preordained win in Half Off they could still load all 16 boxes with money.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'May 28 2004, 11:30 AM\'] Unimpressive.
There have been two pricing games with the same basic concept for almost 30 years. All Half-Off is, is Bonus Game/Shell Game with one small prize taken away and with longer odds [/quote]
Well, there are only so many ways to skin a cat. For instance, Switch? is merely a rehash of One Right Price.
-
Switch? is merely a rehash of One Right Price.
Yup. It was never meant to be anything but. Roger said they needed short games and there you have one.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'May 28 2004, 01:30 PM\']Unimpressive.[/quote]
Geeze...that's kinda harsh.
Fun game...easy to understand...exciting...looks great...NO problems here.
Great job Mandel...couldn't have happened to a nicer guy! :-)
ITSBRY
itsbry@juno.com
-
[quote name=\'ITSBRY\' date=\'May 28 2004, 01:16 PM\'] [quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'May 28 2004, 01:30 PM\']Unimpressive.[/quote]
Geeze...that's kinda harsh.
[/quote]
I call it honest, and I found it refreshing.
He was underwhelmed, he said as much, he explained why. Frankly, I was hoping for a little something more, myself, considering this thing was touted pretty heavily as a totally new concept, and considering it's a cash game.
(I don't see them engineering it in the fashion Chris suggested, however, esepcially if Bob says something to the effect of "let's take away half of the incorrect boxes", since that implies that one and only one box has the $10K, and now you start asking all kinds of morality questions.)
-
I think the game was great. Although I did have different board designs in mind when I first read the concept..I was thinking bold, hard-hitting colors rather than pastels...Also, I think it'd be neat if the boxes suddenly dropped out of position (ala Russian Roulette) rather than lowered below eye level. Also, scrap the cheesy chime noises when they lower.
Those are just things I had in mind. The game itself works perfectly, and the set itself is very impressive and once again reinforces how good the CBS prop department really is. :-)
Great job Mandel!
-
I found it entertaining. The sinking boxes effect looks awesome, and the game itself is very fun to watch.
Honestly, it reminds me of "Treasure Hunt".
I'm wondering what's in the other boxes. Klunks?
-
[quote name=\'Vgmastr\' date=\'May 28 2004, 12:04 PM\']
They don't do a post-facto reveal so the audience doesn't know what's in the unpicked boxes.
How do you know? We don't know what happens when a contestant loses. It's possible they reveal where the money was on a loss.[/quote]
During the following commercial break, Bob told the audience that if she'd lost, the remaining incorrect boxes would have been lowered, leaving only the correct one.
-
I think it would be very dishonest not to put money in any of the boxes.
The contestant has a chance to win 10,000. Bob also clearly says there is money in one of the boxes.
As for my thoughts on the game... great! The reveal of the money was reminiscent of Fortune Hunter, and perhaps that was an element of FH that Bob liked.
I say, it's about time that someone like Mandel comes up with something other than higher or lower for a small prize. I did think some of the half priced items were a tad obvious, but I think they'll become more difficult with more gameplay.
The difference between Half Off and Fortune Hunter is that Fortune Hunter wasn't as well staged. The prices of all four prizes weren't always revealed, and Bob reading clues to eliminate boxes just seemed a tad out of place.
Chris has every right to his opinion, but I also disagree... Half Off is one of the better new pricing games in quite some time. I too extend congratulations to Mandel! May you keep it coming with more new pricing game ideas!
-
Don't post too often here, but guess it's time to start!
What a great concept! They brought back a "fan favorite" of sorts with a loosely-interpreted mirroring of "F.H." and gave it some panache.
As mentioned before perfect pricing here buys you a 1 in 2 shot at $10K
With Punchy, perfect pricing nets you about a 1 in what 6-7 shot at $10K?
While Punchy has always been a favorite of mine, this one might take its place.
NO to "consolations"/"opt-outs". Win and in or out and about. Otherwise, too much LIKE Punchboard.
Clanger must been fritzy today.
Count on seeing this game AT LEAST TWO more times before season's end, and it wouldn't surprise me to see it three times! (Like Monday or Tuesday, or both!)
cheers . . .
-
During the following commercial break, Bob told the audience that if she'd lost, the remaining incorrect boxes would have been lowered, leaving only the correct one.
That's good to hear.
I call it honest, and I found it refreshing.
He was underwhelmed, he said as much, he explained why. Frankly, I was hoping for a little something more, myself, considering this thing was touted pretty heavily as a totally new concept, and considering it's a cash game.
People talk about the way ideas were subjected to so much internal debate when Goodson was alive, and that was certainly one of the components of the company's success and longevity. The critique I gave of Half Off was nothing you wouldn't have heard within G-T or from any astute network executive. It wouldn't matter if the idea came from Frank Wayne, Mandel Ilagan or the homeless guy in the alley behind 6430 Sunset. The comments are directed at the game and not the creator. Anyone who creates and pitches an idea and invests too much hope in it is setting himself up for a big disappointment if and when the idea is ever rejected.
On the other side of the coin, when a game or a show is mounted without any internal refinement or discernment and people go with the first thing that comes to mind because they're in love with their own ideas, you wind up with things like Card Sharks 2001.
Now, with all that out of the way, Mandel gets well-deserved props for the novel notion of "which price is half off?". It's the "boxes" part of the game that leaves me flat.
Oooooooh, BOXXXXXXXXXES!!!
-
Liked the game idea myself. Reminds me of the short lived pricing game, Fortune Hunter (Eliminate the prize that is more than $1,000).
It would've been funny if Bob Barker used the same cry Betty White & John Davidson used for their shows, "On the count of three, 1, 2, 3!"
Since Half Off pays $10,000, it should be the 5TH Pricing Game to have the "famous siren" to join Punch/Grand/Bag/Triple Play. Then I'd nickname all those pricing games, "5 GOLDEN RINGS!"
-
[quote name=\'GSWitch\' date=\'May 28 2004, 08:03 PM\'] Since Half Off pays $10,000, it should be the 5TH Pricing Game to have the "famous siren" to join Punch/Grand/Bag/Triple Play. Then I'd nickname all those pricing games, "5 GOLDEN RINGS!" [/quote]
I thought as well that it should have the siren, as $10,000 wins usually come with them. And thank you for not exclaiming "Whoop whoop Moe Larry the Cheese".
-
[quote name=\'hmtriplecrown\' date=\'May 28 2004, 12:43 PM\'][quote name=\'That Don Guy\' date=\'May 28 2004, 01:38 PM\'] One - how long has it been since there was a game that used six or more (for lack of a better term for it, although it's not 100% accurate) "two-digit" prizes? (The last one I can think of was Trader Bob.) [/quote]
Someone's forgotten about On the Spot...but after seeing that abomination a handful of times, I can't blame you for forgetting. ;-)[/quote]
I thought "On The Spot" only had five.
(Also, at first, it looked as if the bills in the box were play money, but when I freeze-framed it, they were real $50 bills, which probably says more for the designs of the money than anything else...)
-- Don
-
Quoting my reaction/comments on Half Off's first playing:
Gentleman and ladies, Half Off has arrived! This all-new Pricing Game features rows of boxes, but only one contains the grand prize of $10,000 in cash. In order for a contestant, specifically Melissa to find that special box without the high chance of losing, she must pick at least 3 items with a price half its original retail price. Why? Because if she picks at least 1 half priced item, half of the boxes without $10,000 will be removed. As for Melissa, she managed to get 2 out of 3 half priced items right and picked the box marked #7 (not only a lucky number, but the age of her little girl, or daughter for the rest of y’all out there). At Bob’s cue of “Now!” Melissa opened the box to reveal $10,000 in cash. A perfect beginning to a fun Pricing game!
I also named the rows of boxes "Box Central".
-
Actually, with the name "Half Off" I was expecting something a little different. I expected that as the game progressed the models would become more and more scantily clad, but given the troubles Barker has had ...
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'May 28 2004, 07:53 PM\'] I expected that as the game progressed the models would become more and more scantily clad [/quote]
You did read that this game was created by Mandel Ilagan and not Phil Rossi, right?
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'May 28 2004, 09:53 PM\'] Actually, with the name "Half Off" I was expecting something a little different. I expected that as the game progressed the models would become more and more scantily clad, but given the troubles Barker has had ... [/quote]
It could've worked, but then the next game would've been Cover-Up.
-
All in all, I really enjoyed this game (congrats to Mandel), and found a new game to hope to play if/when I go on TPiR. :-)
One concern I had was that the three choices seemed a bit *too* easy. The $70 toaster versus...I can't remember what it was, but the difference between the two was huge (where would a toaster *ever* be $140?). I think TPiR should spring for more inexpensive stuff, i.e. the Cliffhangers price range, just to close the gap.
Mind you, this isn't a rip on you, Mandel, as I said, I love the game, but it was just something that really stood out when I watched this morning.
BTW, I read the blog story, but you didn't watch any Treasure Hunt before coming up with this, did you? ;-)
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' date=\'May 28 2004, 10:29 PM\'] All in all, I really enjoyed this game (congrats to Mandel), and found a new game to hope to play if/when I go on TPiR. :-)
One concern I had was that the three choices seemed a bit *too* easy. The $70 toaster versus...I can't remember what it was, but the difference between the two was huge (where would a toaster *ever* be $140?). I think TPiR should spring for more inexpensive stuff, i.e. the Cliffhangers price range, just to close the gap.
Mind you, this isn't a rip on you, Mandel, as I said, I love the game, but it was just something that really stood out when I watched this morning.
BTW, I read the blog story, but you didn't watch any Treasure Hunt before coming up with this, did you? ;-) [/quote]
Maybe they did this on purpose for the premiere showing of the game to make a win more likely?
-
There's something that bothers about any game which his the possibility of doing the pricing perfectly and still winning nothing, without any consolation prize or chance to bail out. If I recall correctly, there are now three games on the entire show that offer that possibility: Joker (4 out of 5 chance of winning), Plinko (I don't knotw what the chance of getting five zeroes is, but I'd bet that it's pretty low), and Half Off (50% chance of winning.) Spelling Bee and Pass the Buck offer a chance to quit while you're ahead, as does Let 'Em Roll, which also has a minimum. Hole In One offers a $500 bonus for perfect pricing.
It feels to me like there ought to be some reward for doing the pricing perfectly. What came to mind, instead of giving a straight bonus or offering a guaranteed payout, would be to have 14 empty boxes, one box with $10,000, and one with a compalitively small amount (say $1,000). If you get all three small prizes right, you can't finish with less than the smaller payout. If you don't, you have at least a 50% chance of winning nothing. Although I worry about adding any more complexity to the rules.
-
[quote name=\'Unrealtor\' date=\'May 28 2004, 09:49 PM\'] If I recall correctly, there are now three games on the entire show that offer that possibility: Joker (4 out of 5 chance of winning), Plinko (I don't knotw what the chance of getting five zeroes is, but I'd bet that it's pretty low), and Half Off (50% chance of winning.) [/quote]
Add Secret X (2/3).
-
First off, congrats Mandel for this one. I was wrong as to where it was placed so that goes to show I'm only human.
As far as Half-Off goes:
The set: Intresting shade of purple(my least favoritte color) but it didn't clash with the studio itself.
The gameplay: Solid. Even I wes surprised as to how it was played. The SP part was pretty easy. I liked how those "wrong" boxes disappear with the chimes.
The reveal: Very FH-esque in nature but it worked very well. Even the $10K purple graphic added that extra touch.
Overall: Well-designed set, solid gameplay execution. I'll give this game a 9.
-
[quote name=\'SplitSecond\' date=\'May 28 2004, 07:59 PM\'] [quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'May 28 2004, 07:53 PM\'] I expected that as the game progressed the models would become more and more scantily clad [/quote]
You did read that this game was created by Mandel Ilagan and not Phil Rossi, right? [/quote]
Well, ya never know. When Barker's gone they could have male models.
-
There's something that bothers about any game which his the possibility of doing the pricing perfectly and still winning nothing, without any consolation prize or chance to bail out.
I can live without the guaranteed win, but someone who aces the small prize picks deserves better than even odds of winning. As this game plays over the years, I think you'll find that the small prize component will become really, REALLY easy just to give the contestant those 50:50 odds. If the contestants average two out of three correct small prize picks, the odds of winning will hover around 1 in 4 and you'll have a high rate of losses.
Half Off also suffers from the Give or Keep syndrome in that three pair of prizes, or a total of six prizes, is about the maximum number of prizes of that size that you can reasonably expect to have in a pricing game.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'May 29 2004, 03:55 AM\']I can live without the guaranteed win, but someone who aces the small prize picks deserves better than even odds of winning. As this game plays over the years, I think you'll find that the small prize component will become really, REALLY easy just to give the contestant those 50:50 odds. If the contestants average two out of three correct small prize picks, the odds of winning will hover around 1 in 4 and you'll have a high rate of losses.
Half Off also suffers from the Give or Keep syndrome in that three pair of prizes, or a total of six prizes, is about the maximum number of prizes of that size that you can reasonably expect to have in a pricing game.[/quote]
What if they were to do something like this: Six prizes, not paired up. Four are half off - pick 'em a la Grand Game. Someone would get all four for a guaranteed win occasionally, but not often enough to take away from the spirit of the game, IMO.
-
What if they were to do something like this: Six prizes, not paired up. Four are half off - pick 'em a la Grand Game. Someone would get all four for a guaranteed win occasionally, but not often enough to take away from the spirit of the game, IMO.
Problem with that is it would guarantee the most a contestant would ever have to choose from would be four boxes. In order for that to work, you'd need eight prizes.
-
[quote name=\'Vgmastr\' date=\'May 29 2004, 12:10 PM\'] Problem with that is it would guarantee the most a contestant would ever have to choose from would be four boxes. In order for that to work, you'd need eight prizes. [/quote]
Not necessarily. Rather than giving the player four picks at the outset, the rule could be that the contestant may continue picking as long as he or she picks the half-off items. One false move ends the pricing portion of the game.
-
[quote name=\'gameshowsteve\' date=\'May 29 2004, 01:18 AM\'] [quote name=\'Unrealtor\' date=\'May 28 2004, 09:49 PM\'] If I recall correctly, there are now three games on the entire show that offer that possibility: Joker (4 out of 5 chance of winning), Plinko (I don't knotw what the chance of getting five zeroes is, but I'd bet that it's pretty low), and Half Off (50% chance of winning.) [/quote]
Add Secret X (2/3). [/quote]
And Card Game and 3 Strikes. (Actually, I guess they're more along the lines of having situations that make it impossible to do the pricing part perfectly.)
-
I'm a bit worried about the "Fortune Hunter" aspect of the game. Is it plagiarism if I steal my own words on the matter :P?
One thing that really worries me about the game is that I can easily forsee the same major problem I had with Fortune Hunter coming into play here. Bob would usually tease the contestants, while giving them the duty to reveal the contents of the box. The problem is that the nervous contestants on stage are in no position to be teased! Bob would say, like, "1-2-3--now!" when they were to lift the lid, but often, instead, he'd go "1-2-3--what would you... awww, you lifted the lid too early," almost as if he were unaware it was his own fault that he basically tricked the contestant into taking the lid off earlier than he wanted.
He'd essentially scold some contestants for taking that lid off too early, particularly mean-spirited on the January 22, 1998 episode. It really didn't show Bob at his best. Bob should've either done the reveal himself, not putting the pressure on the contestants, but he could've teased all he wanted, or he should've just not teased the contestant, done the "1-2-3-now!" as simply as possible, as not to make the nervous wreck of a contestant into even more of a nervous wreck, and screwing the reveal.
Maybe it won't happen now. Maybe I'm worried for nothing. It might be a good game, and it seems it will play better than Fortune Hunter did. I bet the game goes relatively quickly once it gets into its little groove; shouldn't be the time-killer the non-SP/non-GP Fortune Hunter was.
Losing the overload of pastels on the set would be nice, though :P.
-
[quote name=\'Frank15\' date=\'May 29 2004, 04:54 PM\'] I'm a bit worried about the "Fortune Hunter" aspect of the game. Is it plagiarism if I steal my own words on the matter :P?
One thing that really worries me about the game is that I can easily forsee the same major problem I had with Fortune Hunter coming into play here. Bob would usually tease the contestants, while giving them the duty to reveal the contents of the box. The problem is that the nervous contestants on stage are in no position to be teased! Bob would say, like, "1-2-3--now!" when they were to lift the lid, but often, instead, he'd go "1-2-3--what would you... awww, you lifted the lid too early," almost as if he were unaware it was his own fault that he basically tricked the contestant into taking the lid off earlier than he wanted.
He'd essentially scold some contestants for taking that lid off too early, particularly mean-spirited on the January 22, 1998 episode. It really didn't show Bob at his best. Bob should've either done the reveal himself, not putting the pressure on the contestants, but he could've teased all he wanted, or he should've just not teased the contestant, done the "1-2-3-now!" as simply as possible, as not to make the nervous wreck of a contestant into even more of a nervous wreck, and screwing the reveal.
Maybe it won't happen now. Maybe I'm worried for nothing. It might be a good game, and it seems it will play better than Fortune Hunter did. I bet the game goes relatively quickly once it gets into its little groove; shouldn't be the time-killer the non-SP/non-GP Fortune Hunter was.
Losing the overload of pastels on the set would be nice, though :P. [/quote]
Not sure I understand your logic. Whether the reveal is earlier than Barker wants shouldn't matter--either the contestant picked the right box or didn't pick the right box. How early the reveal is doesn't affect game play or the outcome.
Then again, I don't really recall Fortune Hunter (guess I just wasn't watching that day ;-) ). (No, I don't need to know that it was played for about three years before being retired.)
Doug -- and the countdown to 500 continues
-
[quote name=\'SRIV94\' date=\'May 29 2004, 05:34 PM\'] Not sure I understand your logic. Whether the reveal is earlier than Barker wants shouldn't matter--either the contestant picked the right box or didn't pick the right box. How early the reveal is doesn't affect game play or the outcome. [/quote]
It's not that it affected the outcome: it's more that it affected Bob's mood....
-
[quote name=\'Frank15\' date=\'May 29 2004, 04:54 PM\'] He'd essentially scold some contestants for taking that lid off too early, particularly mean-spirited on the January 22, 1998 episode. [/quote]
You actually remember the exact date of an episode where Bob wasn't in a good mood? Wow. And I'd thought I'd heard everything..........
It's not that it affected the outcome: it's more that it affected Bob's mood....
and I'm sure if I had a possible $5,000 sitting in front of me, I'd REALLY be worried about Bob's mood. The staff, OTOH........
Tyshaun
-
[quote name=\'tyshaun1\' date=\'May 29 2004, 06:15 PM\']You actually remember the exact date of an episode where Bob wasn't in a good mood? Wow. And I'd thought I'd heard everything..........[/quote]
You mustn't know me very well ;)....
[quote name=\'tyshaun1\']and I'm sure if I had a possible $5,000 sitting in front of me, I'd REALLY be worried about Bob's mood. The staff, OTOH........[/quote]
It simply does not make for a particularly good viewing experience.
-
[quote name=\'tyshaun1\' date=\'May 29 2004, 06:15 PM\'] You actually remember the exact date of an episode where Bob wasn't in a good mood? Wow. And I'd thought I'd heard everything.......... [/quote]
Well, if it's the only day he's ever been in a bad mood on air.... :)
-
[quote name=\'Fedya\' date=\'May 29 2004, 11:04 PM\'] Well, if [January 22, 1998 is] the only day he's ever been in a bad mood on air.... :) [/quote]
Except it wasn't. It's happened a few other times too, though to lesser extents, all because of his bad directions. Not exactly the sort of thing that helps me to enjoy a game....
-
It could've worked, but then the next game would've been Cover-Up.
I guess I shouldn't bring up an earlier joke about the contestant Coming or Going (rimshot)
BUT SERIOUSLY: I liked this game very much. A very nice big set and fun music. The problem with the ending is the same as Fortune Hunter. What if Bob and the contestant joke around a lot and they open the box with a big big big big flourish and it is empty? That will be a real downer. Bob usually knows not to draf out a loss too much.
NOT TO WORRY MANDEL, BUT: I really liked this game. And this is the truth - some of my other favorite games were Split Decision, Gallery Game (it was a unique thought), and Fortune Hunter. Further, I don't see all the basis for the animosity toward Joker and Pick A Number while people are silent about One Wrong Price and Freeze Frame.
FINALLY, A THREE STOOGES REFERENCE: Since we have been discussing the masters of the short film, as they rolled over the 1/2 Off box for the player to open, it would have been cool for her to lift up the box and there was Curly's grinning head, - he pops up and breaks out of the podium to take Bob's pictur efor his web site. You hear woo woo woo and see him toddling off the stage and up the turntable stairs. He pries open the turntable but gets stuck between the partition. We hear, "OW OW OW OW OW OW OW Moe I'm stuck.". Moe yells - get the plinko stick - we gotta pry him out.
-
[quote name=\'Jim\' date=\'May 30 2004, 04:56 PM\'] Further, I don't see all the basis for the animosity toward Joker and Pick A Number while people are silent about One Wrong Price and Freeze Frame. [/quote]
Joker is a horrible looking game that looks like it was slapped together in an hour. Not that interesting to me either.
Pick A Number looks cool, but is boring. Boring, boring, boring. To be honest, I can't put my finger on why I dislike it so much. Maybe because it's boring.
One Wrong Price looks cool, but it doesn't really let people down. Even it's name suggests that it is the polar opposite of One Right Price.
Finally, Freeze Frame ain't that bad. It's kinda creative even.
Brandon Brooks
-
I finally saw it today, and while I thought the set was nice to look at, the game itself was a halfway-novel idea (determining which price is "half off") surrounded in a festering pile of random crap. A cash game like that should involve more than a single random choice, and IMO the hype here didn't remotely live up to the result.
Further, I don't see all the basis for the animosity toward Joker and Pick A Number while people are silent about One Wrong Price and Freeze Frame.
Joker is FAR too drawn out for what should be a crappy quickie game, and Pick A Number just plain sucks, from the ugly set to the nothing gameplay.
One Wrong Price, on the other hand, does exactly what it should do, as does Freeze Frame, whose success at least depends SOMEWHAT on pricing knowledge.
it would have been cool for her to lift up the box and there was Curly's grinning head, - he pops up and breaks out of the podium to take Bob's pictur efor his web site. You hear woo woo woo and see him toddling off the stage and up the turntable stairs. He pries open the turntable but gets stuck between the partition. We hear, "OW OW OW OW OW OW OW Moe I'm stuck.". Moe yells - get the plinko stick - we gotta pry him out.
Um, "cool" isn't the word that popped into my mind, but it woulda been...well, something.
-
I don't get to watch very often, but I saw it today. (The local station tape-delays it.) I like the basic concept and the staging, but count me among those who don't like the fact that you can be perfect and win nothing. The only tweak I'd make is to have four pairs of prizes, so that perfect pricing gives you an automatic win.
As a side note: If they ever need to cut the game for time, only air one prize at a time and ask, "Is this the correct price, or is it half off?"
-
a festering pile of random crap
Jeez, and people thought I was being harsh. A pile of random crap is bad enough, but when it starts to fester, you don't want to be anywhere near Beverly and Fairfax. We might send SkyFox if it starts to fester.
I still don't like those long odds.
-
The only tweak I'd make is to have four pairs of prizes, so that perfect pricing gives you an automatic win.
EIGHT prizes?
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'May 31 2004, 09:44 PM\']
The only tweak I'd make is to have four pairs of prizes, so that perfect pricing gives you an automatic win.
EIGHT prizes? [/quote]
Eight prizes is way TOO many to use & is a time waster I think. 6 is a more reasonable number thus eliminating a garunteed win here.