Author Topic: Half Off Debut (Read 7852 times)

Frank15 · « **Reply #45 on:** May 29, 2004, 05:54:38 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

?

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

.

SRIV94 · « **Reply #46 on:** May 29, 2004, 06:34:52 PM »

[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

?

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

. [/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

Frank15 · « **Reply #47 on:** May 29, 2004, 07:06:32 PM »

[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....

tyshaun1 · « **Reply #48 on:** May 29, 2004, 07:15:48 PM »

[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..........

Quote

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

Frank15 · « **Reply #49 on:** May 29, 2004, 07:30:48 PM »

[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.

Fedya · « **Reply #50 on:** May 30, 2004, 12:04:36 AM »

[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....

Frank15 · « **Reply #51 on:** May 30, 2004, 01:49:10 AM »

[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....

Jim · « **Reply #52 on:** May 30, 2004, 05:56:32 PM »

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.

Brandon Brooks · « **Reply #53 on:** May 30, 2004, 09:22:18 PM »

[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

clemon79 · « **Reply #54 on:** May 30, 2004, 11:02:17 PM »

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Jay Temple · « **Reply #55 on:** May 31, 2004, 09:45:06 PM »

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?"

chris319 · « **Reply #56 on:** May 31, 2004, 10:43:08 PM »

Quote

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.

chris319 · « **Reply #57 on:** May 31, 2004, 10:44:26 PM »

Quote

The only tweak I'd make is to have four pairs of prizes, so that perfect pricing gives you an automatic win.

EIGHT prizes?

Craig Karlberg · « **Reply #58 on:** June 01, 2004, 05:03:11 AM »

[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'May 31 2004, 09:44 PM\']

Quote

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.