Make Your Mark Change - Good, Bad or Indifferent?

[BillCullen1]

[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' post=\'195164\' date=\'Aug 25 2008, 09:03 PM\']
I think it was often goofy when Bob demanded the money back because Bob had just done a poor job of explaining that that might happen. The money should be the temptation, not the money + a clumsy description of the rules. [/quote]

I was never confused about the rules to this game, and I thought Bob did a good job of explaining it. If you don't win the prizes, you don't get to keep the money. I don't see why people are bothered with "Oh, the mean host took back the $500." I never thought that. People probably thought Monty was mean when they traded $1,000 for a giant stuffed Teddy Bear, but they didn't stop giving zonks on LMAD because of it.

On ANY game show, it's not the host's fault if the contestant doesn't understand the rules, of if the contestant has a low-wattage light bulb in his/her head. I also think it was asinine to retire Hit Me because people actually couldn't grasp the rules of "21" but that's another argument altogether.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'BillCullen1\' post=\'195418\' date=\'Aug 28 2008, 12:10 PM\']
 I don't see why people are bothered with "Oh, the mean host took back the $500." I never thought that. People probably thought Monty was mean when they traded $1,000 for a giant stuffed Teddy Bear, but they didn't stop giving zonks on LMAD because of it.[/quote]Um, the two aren't REMOTELY comparable.

On ANY game show, it's not the host's fault if the contestant doesn't understand the rules, of if the contestant has a low-wattage light bulb in his/her head.

The question is not one of whose fault it is. The question is whether it's good television or not. And it isn't.

[Mike Tennant]

[quote name=\'BillCullen1\' post=\'195418\' date=\'Aug 28 2008, 03:10 PM\']I was never confused about the rules to this game, and I thought Bob did a good job of explaining it.[/quote]With that I will agree.

[quote name=\'BillCullen1\' post=\'195418\' date=\'Aug 28 2008, 03:10 PM\']On ANY game show, it's not the host's fault if the contestant doesn't understand the rules . . .[/quote]On any other game show, I would agree because the contestants are all playing the same game and thus are advised of the rules of the game they will be playing in advance.  On TPIR, however, the host's explanation of the individual pricing game rules is critical because the contestants haven't been advised of those rules in advance.  (This is not meant to be combative but merely to offer a differing viewpoint on the importance of the host's rule explanations.  I voted that the change won't make much difference, by the way.)

[MTCesquire]

I'm really in shock that the "Make Your Mark" change has caused two threads worth of "controversy" while the "3 Strikes" change seems to be all but forgotten.  I'm not saying that "3 Strikes" is where all this energy needs to be focused because, at the end of the day, none of this really matters when it comes to the show overall.  I'm just saying I thought I'd be seeing more discussion over "3 Strikes" because that rule change is way more drastic by comparison.

As far as "MYM" goes, I voted "little to no impact".  As stated previously, it seemed like the average viewer/contestant thought they only lost the $500 if they spent it on the change and seemed especially surprised that they lost the money anyway if they lost and left everything the same.  All this change does is make things more "logical", if you will.  However, since "MYM" is one of the lesser-known games on the show, I doubt this small addendum to the rules will cause a widespread boycott against the show like some people (not necessarily on this board) will lead you to believe.

Gameplay mechanics, better television arguments, etc. aside, I think the only reason why this is causing such an uproar is because it goes against the whole "all or nothing" thing that "Price" has had for most of its games.  Usually, it's "if you win X, you'll get Y as a bonus" or "you can take X and leave Y on the table" and "if you lose, you don't win Y and you forfeit X".  This new rule change says "if you lose, you don't win X but you get to keep Y if you don't spend it".  To that I say...so the f*** what?  Like I said, it makes more sense that way than to take everything away for a loss.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'MTCesquire\' post=\'195437\' date=\'Aug 28 2008, 03:01 PM\']
Gameplay mechanics, better television arguments, etc. aside, I think the only reason why this is causing such an uproar is because it goes against the whole "all or nothing" thing that "Price" has had for most of its games.[/quote]
No, there are other reasons.

Unless you mean "uproar among the die-hard Price fans."

[Robert Hutchinson]

Perhaps I've lost my senses, but I recall more than one occasion where Bob didn't explain what could happen to the $500 any further than "if you don't switch and you're wrong, you lose everything". Of course, that's more a fault of Bob than a fault of the game, but I never meant to classify it as the latter.

[MTCesquire]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'195442\' date=\'Aug 28 2008, 07:10 PM\']
[quote name=\'MTCesquire\' post=\'195437\' date=\'Aug 28 2008, 03:01 PM\']
Gameplay mechanics, better television arguments, etc. aside, I think the only reason why this is causing such an uproar is because it goes against the whole "all or nothing" thing that "Price" has had for most of its games.[/quote]
No, there are other reasons.

Unless you mean "uproar among the die-hard Price fans."
[/quote]

At first, I meant uproar in general.  Then, after thinking about it some, I guess I do mean uproar within the Price community, which in turn spilled over in the "general population", if you will.  I'm still like BFD since Make Your Mark gets played once in a blue moon.  Now, if they decided to turn both $0 spots on the Plinko board into $5,000, then there'd be a reason for all the commotion.

[wdm1219inpenna]

I must admit, I am somewhat confused here.

If the player keeps the $500, in exchange for not switching the 3rd marker, and they were wrong to do so, they still get to keep the $500 now.  This much I understand.

Should the player give back the $500 to change the 3rd marker and they are right, they win all 3 prizes only.  Is this correct?

Should the player give back the $500 to change the 3rd marker and they are wrong, they lose all 3 prizes, but get the $500 back?

I used to like this game, but now with all these rule changes for so many different games, I'm ready to retire this 3 prize game.  I'm still not totally clear on 1/2 off why players win $500 cash when they win the small prize portion of the game, and if they get all 3 right, and find the right box, do they win $1,500 plus $10,000?

To touch upon the 3 Strikes rule change, giving the 1st digit for free, not necessarily a bad idea.  It will make the game a little bit faster perhaps, and allow them to use more reasonably priced cars.  To me, Golden Road and Golden Road alone should have the pricier automobiles.  Three Strikes was played for many years for "regular" cars and it was still a fun and exciting game to watch.  Many pricing games give the 1st digit for free, or in Money Game's case the middle digit for free, so I suppose that's why not too much "uproar" has ensued over that.

[Mr. Armadillo]

[quote name=\'wdm1219inpenna\' post=\'195501\' date=\'Aug 29 2008, 09:31 PM\']
I used to like this game, but now with all these rule changes for so many different games, I'm ready to retire this 3 prize game.  I'm still not totally clear on 1/2 off why players win $500 cash when they win the small prize portion of the game, and if they get all 3 right, and find the right box, do they win $1,500 plus $10,000?[/quote]

Just pretend that Drew hands the contestant $500 every time they get a pair of SP's right.  

To touch upon the 3 Strikes rule change, giving the 1st digit for free, not necessarily a bad idea.  It will make the game a little bit faster perhaps, and allow them to use more reasonably priced cars.  

Here's the thing, though.  

First digit free = good.
One strike in the bag = good.
Both at once = BAD.

If they left the three strikes in the bag, they could probably keep playing for Three Strikes-caliber cars.  Now, they're stuck with Dodge Caliber cars.  :-/

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'wdm1219inpenna\' post=\'195501\' date=\'Aug 29 2008, 10:31 PM\']Should the player give back the $500 to change the 3rd marker and they are wrong, they lose all 3 prizes, but get the $500 back?[/quote]
No.  If you pay the $500 to change the marker and you're wrong, you get nothing at all.

[wdm1219inpenna]

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'195507\' date=\'Aug 29 2008, 11:04 PM\']
[quote name=\'wdm1219inpenna\' post=\'195501\' date=\'Aug 29 2008, 10:31 PM\']Should the player give back the $500 to change the 3rd marker and they are wrong, they lose all 3 prizes, but get the $500 back?[/quote]
No.  If you pay the $500 to change the marker and you're wrong, you get nothing at all.
[/quote]


Thank you for that clarification Matt.  I thought that is how it was going to be, but it was not totally clear to me before now.

[alfonzos]

"Make Your Mark" now is now very similar to "Tempatation" but that's okay because "Shell Game" is almost "Bonus Game" and "Clearance Sale" is a variant of "Easy as 1, 2, 3." All are exciting puzzles which are fun to watch.

[JackSpader]

Why should the player get to keep the $500 without risking it?  Easy, because if the contestant is not thrilled about the prizes, they'll leave everything the way it is and get $500 just because.  That's why everyone will not give up money anytime this game is played, and even more so now because of the rule change.  

"Oh, I don't get to win a car, I'll just take the $500 without a care in the world."

I mean, in Spelling Bee the player always risks the chance of losing out on guaranteed money with each turn of the card.  The thing is if the contestant doesn't like his/her chances then the money might get taken.  But the thing there is that with a 1 and 15 chance of picking a card with the "CAR" on it, most would choose not to regret losing out on a car, so they go for it.

So in comparison to Spelling Bee where the money was the lesser concern of the game, the new rules of Make Your Mark seem to put more emphasis on the fact that you can have a guaranteed $500 without risk, and that isn't right.  When the money was a lose-lose for placing a mark on the rouge price, the money was a lesser concern in terms of having a temptation factor, and that's been lost.

[chris319]

Maybe we can get another seven pages out of this thread.

The new rules reward the contestant for being wrong and losing the game. If S.V. and company had thought this over for two minutes, they might have come up with the following:

The contestant places two markers. The house reveals the two selected prices. If the contestant has selected the "danger price", game over. If not, the contestant is awarded $500. He may then end the game and walk away with the $500 bonus, or he may forfeit the bonus for the right to place the final marker. If he places the final marker correctly he wins the prizes but not the bonus.

- The contestant must earn the $500 bonus.

- The contestant may walk away if he is unsure of the price of one of the prizes.

- The contestant is not rewarded for losing the game.

This is from page 17 of the Frank Wayne playbook.

[tpirfan28]

[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'195698\' date=\'Sep 1 2008, 11:54 AM\']
If S.V. and company had thought this over for two minutes, they might have come up with the following:[/quote]
That's where they fail.  Thinking.

That's an excellent way to make it work.