Author Topic: When TPIR was at it's best (Read 11926 times)

saussage · « **Reply #45 on:** May 05, 2005, 11:39:26 PM »

[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' date=\'May 5 2005, 09:30 PM\'][quote name=\'saussage\' date=\'May 5 2005, 10:04 PM\']I'm sure if Pick-a-Pair can make a comeback due to issues, so can $uper $aver (the issue with the marry-go-round and Bob being able to see all the prices before they were revealed).
[/quote]

You obviously read my explanation of Bob screwing up the rules. Would you care to actually pay it some attention?

[snapback]84549[/snapback]

[/quote]
Bob screwing up the rules vs Bob screwing up the game: it's still Bob screwing up something that affected gameplay. The whole issue is whether a game should be retired because of a flaw or screw-up (or as I called it, an issue). I believe that $uper $aver given the same treatment as Pick-A-Pair would still be in circulation today. Whether it's a whoops with Bob's rules or an issue with the game, second chances should be given. I'm sure we can all agree that $uper $aver was a pretty good pricing game.

As far as proper comparisons, I do not recall any other pricing game that Bob messed up the rules with which eventually resulted in the game being out of circulation so no other proper comparison can be made. I do not want to confuse with confusing games which were retired because I'm sure people can recall many of them (Double Digits comes to mind). It wasn't much about Bob screwing around the rules but more like "How confusing do you want me to say the rules".

It doesn't say anywhere on the golden road web site whether Double Digits was retired due to confusion but I'm sure from the TPIR tapes we've seen of this game, I wouldn't have been suprized if it was a factor why it got retired.

Deep down inside, I'd just like to see $uper $aver back.
I'm tired NOWK

clemon79 · « **Reply #46 on:** May 05, 2005, 11:52:52 PM »

[quote name=\'saussage\' date=\'May 5 2005, 08:39 PM\']Deep down inside, I'd just like to see $uper $aver back.
[/quote]
Yes. We get it. And you can keep repeating it until you turn into a pink fuzzy rabbit, but it's not going to happen.

saussage · « **Reply #47 on:** May 06, 2005, 12:22:38 AM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'May 5 2005, 10:52 PM\'][quote name=\'saussage\' date=\'May 5 2005, 08:39 PM\']Deep down inside, I'd just like to see $uper $aver back.
[/quote]
Yes. We get it. And you can keep repeating it until you turn into a pink fuzzy rabbit, but it's not going to happen.

[snapback]84565[/snapback]

[/quote]
I know it's not going to happen but I love rabbits

Now to get back on track, what other TPIR games would you like to see come back from the grave or rarely played games just to get more air time?

Was "Give or Keep" that bad of a game? We'd all love to see BUMP again

Kevin Prather · « **Reply #48 on:** May 06, 2005, 12:25:51 AM »

Bullseye I!

*ducks*

Steve Gavazzi · « **Reply #49 on:** May 06, 2005, 12:33:31 AM »

Saussage, please try get it through your skull that $uper $aver was retired as a result of Bob explaining the rules incorrectly. He was the one who decided he didn't want to risk doing it again, and no matter how long you try to argue that that wasn't the reason, you aren't going to get any less wrong. For your own sake, DROP IT; otherwise, I may have to slap you.

[quote name=\'saussage\' date=\'May 5 2005, 11:39 PM\']It doesn't say anywhere on the golden road web site whether Double Digits was retired due to confusion but I'm sure from the TPIR tapes we've seen of this game, I wouldn't have been suprized if it was a factor why it got retired.

[snapback]84564[/snapback]

[/quote]

I realize that this wasn't your purpose, but please do not try to offer me insights as to what is and isn't in Golden-Road.net's FAQ. I wrote the damn thing.

DJDustman · « **Reply #50 on:** May 06, 2005, 12:46:58 AM »

When TPIR was at its best? Simple answer, TPIR is still at its best. Enjoy it while it lasts, Barker is with us, we still get new pricing games every year, the models are always cute, be happy

.

saussage · « **Reply #51 on:** May 06, 2005, 12:55:54 AM »

[quote name=\'Steve Gavazzi\' date=\'May 5 2005, 11:33 PM\']Saussage, please try get it through your skull that $uper $aver was retired as a result of Bob explaining the rules incorrectly.

[snapback]84569[/snapback]

[/quote]
All I said was that I found it a bit hard to swallow that the game was shelved due to saying the rules incorrectly. I didn't way that you were wrong, I just find it amazing how one blunder can shelve a pricing game.

I read the reason why it was shelved on the webpage, I have no reason to disagree with it. Just because I have an opinion on why something happened doesn't make me right. I wasn't here to rewrite history, I was just giving my opinion, something that I must've omitted for this conversation to occur.

Pass me some aspirin.
I feel like shoving a 0 in the Lucky Seven price :p

dizzy · « **Reply #52 on:** May 06, 2005, 02:21:14 AM »

quote from saussage, May 5 2005, 11:55 PM]

All I said was that I found it a bit hard to swallow that the game was shelved due to saying the rules incorrectly. I didn't way that you were wrong, I just find it amazing how one blunder can shelve a pricing game.

-----------------

Ok... Swallow THIS saussage. Bob screwed up. Then he feared it would happen again. Bob starting having nightmares over this. Then whenever he would pass by SuperSaver in the hall he started having Panic Attacks. Many months of therapy did not resolve this issue. Bob then ordered the game destroyed. He was once overheard muttering to himself that he would have Dian Parkinson back on stage before he would ever set foot near Super Saver again. So give poor Bob a break. Big Bad Game made bob afraid! ;-)

Dizzy

Dbacksfan12 · « **Reply #53 on:** May 06, 2005, 02:58:17 AM »

I think someone had one too many glasses of Kool-Aid before bedtime.

Craig Karlberg · « **Reply #54 on:** May 06, 2005, 04:58:27 AM »

Shoving a 0 in a Lucky $even price sounds kinda harsh, but it ACTUALLY did happen many years ago.

As far as time comparisons go with 1977 & now goes, back then, the average airing time was around 45 minutes(give or take a minute) while it's only about 40 mimutes today. I guess that's the way the economical ball bounces.

jmangin · « **Reply #55 on:** May 06, 2005, 08:03:37 AM »

[quote name=\'saussage\' date=\'May 5 2005, 10:04 PM\'][quote name=\'jmangin\' date=\'May 5 2005, 08:23 AM\']For Dice Game, Bob always says there are no zeroes and no numbers above six. It's not fair to compare the Super Saver debacle against Dice Game since the same issue has not happened for both games.

[snapback]84467[/snapback]

[/quote]
Bad example or not, the Dice Game example with the 0's was one that never happened, but one that could easily happen.

[snapback]84544[/snapback]

[/quote]

That's still not a fair statement. A zero in the price of Dice Game with modern rules WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

saussage · « **Reply #56 on:** May 06, 2005, 08:23:46 AM »

[quote name=\'dizzy\' date=\'May 6 2005, 01:21 AM\']quote from saussage, May 5 2005, 11:55 PM]

All I said was that I found it a bit hard to swallow that the game was shelved due to saying the rules incorrectly. I didn't way that you were wrong, I just find it amazing how one blunder can shelve a pricing game.

-----------------

Ok... Swallow THIS saussage. Bob screwed up. Then he feared it would happen again. Bob starting having nightmares over this. Then whenever he would pass by SuperSaver in the hall he started having Panic Attacks. Many months of therapy did not resolve this issue. Bob then ordered the game destroyed. He was once overheard muttering to himself that he would have Dian Parkinson back on stage before he would ever set foot near Super Saver again. So give poor Bob a break. Big Bad Game made bob afraid! ;-)

Dizzy

[snapback]84576[/snapback]

[/quote]
I'm giving Bob a break. I just don't want Bob with a sledgehammer every time a pricing game he screws up with gets chopped up into retirement

jmangin · « **Reply #57 on:** May 06, 2005, 08:30:26 AM »

[quote name=\'saussage\' date=\'May 6 2005, 08:23 AM\']I'm giving Bob a break. I just don't want Bob with a sledgehammer every time a pricing game he screws up with gets chopped up into retirement

[snapback]84591[/snapback]

[/quote]

True--however a pricing game being retired because of Bob's poor explanation of the rules has only happened once.

Gromit · « **Reply #58 on:** May 07, 2005, 04:04:09 AM »

Well, put me in the Holly, Dian, and Janice camp too. Late 70's, early 80's was definitely my favourite era for the show.

Hard to really pinpoint it, but they all had personalities. You got to hear them talk, interact with Bob, and Holly could always be relied on to screw something up, which made her my favourite. Nowadays, the models are just nameless faceless barbie dolls that rotate in and out.

TimK2003 · « **Reply #59 on:** May 07, 2005, 08:36:25 PM »

[quote name=\'Gromit\' date=\'May 7 2005, 03:04 AM\']Hard to really pinpoint it, but they all had personalities. You got to hear them talk, interact with Bob, and Holly could always be relied on to screw something up, which made her my favourite. Nowadays, the models are just nameless faceless barbie dolls that rotate in and out.

[snapback]84653[/snapback]

[/quote]

A lot of the overt personalities of Janice, Dian & Holly that were seen by the home & studio audiences are thanks to the creative showcases which appeared after TPIR was expanded to 1 hour. Prior to that, they pretty much stood there showing prizes with the anonymity that was commonplace with all other game shows.

Nowadays, the combination of rotating models and the less time to do show segments & showcases due to expanded commercial breaks has pretty much put the models back to the anonymity seen in the show's 1/2 hour days.